BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS
	 — 
	NEW WRIT

Ordered,
	That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough constituency of Leicester South in the room of Peter Alfred Soulsby, who since his election for the said Borough constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—(Ms Rosie Winterton.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Bill of Rights

Esther McVey: What progress he has made on establishing a commission on a Bill of Rights.

Tony Baldry: What progress he has made on establishing a commission on a Bill of Rights.

Nicholas Clegg: The commission has been established. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is responsible for political and constitutional reform, announced the membership and terms of reference of the commission in a written statement to the House on 18 March.

Esther McVey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his response. In the light of the European Court of Human Rights judgments that have gone against the will of the British public by giving prisoners the right to vote, allowing paedophiles to be removed from the sex offenders register and preventing deportation of those considered dangerous to the country’s national security, specifically when could the British Bill of Rights be introduced and how will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that it will reflect the will of the British public in law?

Nicholas Clegg: The commission will be looking at the case for a British Bill of Rights, building on and incorporating all the protections and rights that are already in domestic legislation, translating the rights and responsibilities of the European convention on human rights and building on them, but I think that there is a lot more that the commission can do as well. The Court, by universal acknowledgment, is not working as well as it should. There is a backlog of 140,000 cases, for instance. The Government will assume the chairmanship of the Court in November, and the commission will be providing us, I hope, with useful input on how we can improve the performance of the Court in Strasbourg.

Tony Baldry: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give the House an assurance that a British Bill of Rights will be written by Members of this House and not by the judges, particularly as they now appear to be making what many of us consider to be unconscionable orders that prevent constituents talking to their MPs? That must be unconscionable, so any Bill of Rights must be written by this House and not by the judges.

Nicholas Clegg: Clearly a British Bill of Rights, as I have said, must build on and incorporate the rights that British citizens already enjoy. British judges, parliamentarians and politicians have a long and proud tradition of drafting rights, which apply not only in this country but in others. I think back to the role of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, the Lord Chancellor in the Churchill and Macmillan Governments, who played such a crucial role in drafting the European convention on human rights in the first place.

David Hanson: In 2007 the current Prime Minister said that the Human Rights Act 1998 had to go. Last May the Deputy Prime Minister said that anyone who tampered with it did so at their peril. Could he tell us who is right?

Nicholas Clegg: It is no secret that the two coalition parties in this Government do not see eye to eye on this issue. That is why we have formed a commission that is composed of—[ Interruption. ] I know that Opposition Members cannot bear the idea that in Governments there are perhaps people who have civilised discussions from differing points of view. The mere concept of different politicians in the same Government seeking agreement from different positions is alien to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but it is what we do, and do very well, in this Government.

Sadiq Khan: I welcome the huge number of Liberal Democrat MPs here today to show support for their current leader at the final Deputy Prime Minister’s questions before the local and national elections. I also welcome the president of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is here today.
	Mr Speaker, I am sure you will have been interested by the previous answer that the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the question about his commitment to the Human Rights Act, but Lord McNally in the other place and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change have said that, if the coalition Government
	considered getting rid of that Act, that would be the time for them to consider getting out of the coalition Government. It is a straightforward question: does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with them or not?

Nicholas Clegg: I am a passionate advocate, supporter and defender of the Human Rights Act—full stop.

Ministerial Meetings

John Spellar: What meetings he has scheduled in his official capacity for Friday 6 May 2011.

Nicholas Clegg: On 6 May, I will be in government and the right hon. Gentleman will be in opposition.

John Spellar: I fully understand the Deputy Prime Minister’s reluctance to outline any official duties, as he will have to cope with the Lib Dem wipe-out throughout the country, especially in Sheffield. We should sympathise with him for having to do the rounds of the studios, the meetings with panic-stricken colleagues and the visit to the relationship counsellor about the future of the coalition. Will he be going back to transcendental meditation, or will he just be back on the fags?

Nicholas Clegg: I cannot be bothered to answer that question.

James Clappison: As a supporter of no to AV and somebody who believes in balanced debate, and given that the Deputy Prime Minister was apparently unavailable for the launch of the yes to AV campaign, may I offer him this opportunity to say why he says yes to AV, so that as many people as possible know of his support for it and what lies behind it?

Nicholas Clegg: What I would say to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to all my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches is that the Conservative party has had a long and proud tradition of advocating choice and competition in almost every walk of public life, but that for some reason, which I still cannot fathom, election to this place is the one bit of public life that the people who campaign against electoral reform do not want to make susceptible to greater choice in the hands of the British people. I find that ironic.
	I think the present electoral system is self-evidently broken. There are hundreds of Members in this place who have jobs for life and need only to get 30% of the vote in their constituency. No wonder we had expenses scandals: if you want more duck houses, vote no; if you want more accountability, vote yes.

Chris Bryant: We note from the Deputy Prime Minister’s previous answers today that he has gone from sanctimony to arrogance in one very short year. The arrogance of his answers is phenomenal. May I urge him to allow himself a little luxury on 6 May—a day without Conservatives, no phone calls, no meetings, not even a walk in the park with his best friend, the Prime Minister—so that he can refine his inner social liberal, so that if the AV vote has succeeded
	he sticks with a 100% elected House of Lords, and, if by any chance because of his support, as we have just seen, the campaign fails, he has absolutely nothing to do with the reform of the House of Lords—so that we can get the thing through?

Nicholas Clegg: It is truly laughable, even by the hon. Gentleman’s extraordinary standards, that he now wants to make a show of reform of the House of Lords when his Government delivered precisely 0% of elected Members of the House of Lords. What I can confirm to him and to the House today is that we will bring forward and publish proposals for an extensive reform of the other place—of the House of Lords—by the end of next month.

Political Parties (Funding)

Nick Smith: When he expects to bring forward proposals on the funding of political parties.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Committee on Standards in Public Life is currently carrying out a review of party funding, and it expects to report this spring. When it does, the Government will look with interest at its report and then bring forward our proposals with, I hope, consensus.

Nick Smith: I thank the Minister for his response. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill includes provision for the election of police commissioners. What discussions has the Minister had about the governing of election expenses and any taxpayer contributions towards such expenses for the candidates in those elections?

Mark Harper: That was a very measured question. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at in terms of taxpayer contributions, but I am sure that elections to the office of police commissioner will be carried out in the same way as other elections, and that they will be very well regulated and very sensible. I am not quite sure, however, what the hon. Gentleman is driving at.

Referendum Costs

Ian Murray: What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of holding a UK-wide referendum.

Nicholas Clegg: The cost of holding the referendum is similar to the cost of holding a general election. The Government have been very keen to be as cost-efficient as possible, and that is why the referendum is being held on the same day as other elections.

Ian Murray: Given the rising cost of living for my constituents, partly due to the “Tory VAT bombshell”, does the Deputy Prime Minister think that spending up to £250 million on his AV vanity project is a good use of public funds, and does his continued leadership of his party depend on a yes vote?

Nicholas Clegg: First, I point out that it was in the hon. Gentleman’s manifesto to hold a referendum on AV, and I am sure he has worked out the sums for
	himself. Secondly, this £250 million figure is complete and utter fiction. This Government have set aside £120 million for the costs of the next general election. If I understand it correctly, this fictional figure has come from the assumption that we will be using electronic counting machines, for which this Government have no plans whatsoever.

Peter Bone: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that one cannot put a cost on democracy and that establishing the principle of a referendum might allow us to have future referendums on such things as, say, the European Union?

Nicholas Clegg: I certainly accept my hon. Friend’s premise that we should always stand ready to provide the British people with an opportunity to have a say on issues that are of huge, overwhelming national concern. I would not recommend it as a monthly event, but it is certainly something that has arisen and will continue to arise from time to time.

Nigel Dodds: The Deputy Prime Minister seems very reluctant to spell out the precise cost of this referendum, so could he tell us clearly how much he thinks it is going to cost? How many representations has he received saying that this is the No. 1 priority for people in his constituency?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course, at a time of economic difficulty when there are rising living costs, many other priorities impinge on people’s lives. That is why, for instance, people will welcome the fact that from tomorrow 23 million basic rate taxpayers will get £200 cash in their pockets because of the income tax we are giving back. I accept that that is more important. As I said before, the cost of the referendum will be roughly the cost of every general election.

Topical Questions

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nicholas Clegg: As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policies and initiatives. I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform. As part of this, I would like to confirm again that we will be publishing a draft Bill on House of Lords reform before the end of May.

Jim Cunningham: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why he broke his election pledge in relation to elections to the House of Lords? He said that it would be 100% elected, but now he is saying 80%.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful for Labour Members’ sudden fanatical interest in reforming the House of Lords, given that during 13 years in government they did precisely nothing about it. Of course I am a supporter of a fully elected House of Lords, but I have always said that if we want to prevent the fate of previous attempts to reform the other place, we should not make the best the enemy of the good. We need to
	proceed not only with idealism but with a degree of pragmatism, and that will be reflected, I hope, in the draft Bill that we will publish before the end of next month.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on the news of the coalition Government’s announcement on the new social mobility and internship strategy. I hope, Mr Speaker, that through your good offices we can soon match that internship strategy in this place. May I ask, in particular, how the new internship scheme will benefit my constituents, as too often these schemes are dominated by people from London or with London connections?

Nicholas Clegg: If we are to open up internships in Government and elsewhere—I am delighted that a large number of businesses have already announced that they will be introducing greater meritocracy and transparency in how they administer internships in their own offices—that will depend heavily on people being able to apply for and secure those internships from wherever they live across the whole of the country.

Harriet Harman: The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the replacement scheme for the abolished education maintenance allowance will mean a 60% cut, but does he recognise that his new scheme introduces uncertainty because it is discretionary? Under the new scheme, young people will not know in advance whether they will get a bursary, whether the college they choose will give it to them and how much they will get. What would he say to the thousands of young people who are going to be left in the dark?

Nicholas Clegg: We always said that the previous system—I am sure that the right hon. and learned Lady would be fair enough to recognise that the previous Government acknowledged this, too—would be altered and changed as the compulsory education age went up to 17 in 2013 and to 18 in 2015. What we are doing is what we always said we would do: we are not scrapping the thing altogether but replacing it with a £180 million fund that can be targeted precisely at those people for whom financial support is necessary to continue in full-time education. As she will know, we are providing more money for those who are particularly vulnerable than was available under the old EMA scheme. Yes, we are providing discretion, because directors and principals of further education colleges and sixth forms have told us that that is the best way to ensure that they, who know the individual pupils, can provide the support that is needed.

Harriet Harman: But the Deputy Prime Minister has not answered the point about uncertainty for students who will not know in advance. His answer will not wash with the 600,000 young people who will lose out under the EMA abolition and who, if they manage to stay in education, will face massively increased tuition fees. Even in the constituency of his ludicrously titled advocate for access to education, London South Bank university, which has always done all it can to provide quality higher education to local people on low incomes, now says that it will have to charge £8,450. He said that the £9,000 fees would be the exception rather than the rule, but it has turned out that he is wrong. Is that not just typical of this coalition of cuts, chaos and confusion?

Nicholas Clegg: What is typical is that the right hon. and learned Lady is jumping on the latest bandwagon without checking her facts. Less than half the universities that have published figures so far have said that they will seek to charge £9,000 for some courses, but there are still several weeks—in fact, two or three months—to go before the Office for Fair Access provides its consent to those plans, which can go ahead only if those universities provide much greater opportunities for disadvantaged children to gain access to those universities. She ignores the fact that if we include bursaries and fee waivers, the average level of charges imposed on individual students will be a whole lot lower.

Elizabeth Truss: Given that successive Governments have centralised powers from once mighty councils and municipalities, what steps will the Deputy Prime Minister take to ensure that localism is embedded in our constitution and that future Governments cannot reverse those moves?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that one of the key things that we must deliver as a Government is the reversal of the outrageous arrogation of power to central Government under Labour over the past 13 years. That is a painstaking job that must be reflected in the way we give more freedom to teachers in the classroom, more financial autonomy to our local authorities and more devolution in how our great NHS works. Across the piece, we must reverse the tide of centralisation that was one of the most baleful characteristics of the Labour Government.

Mr Speaker: I call Stephen Pound. He is not here.

John Cryer: Will the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question that he has been asked twice by Opposition Members? How much will the referendum cost? I know that answering a straight question is a bit of an alien concept to him, but will he give us a straight answer? How much will it be?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said before, it is the same as that of a general election. One thing I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that if there is a change in the electoral system it will not—I repeat, not—cost £250 million.

Duncan Hames: Does the Deputy Prime Minister consider the rules on reporting of political donations to be adequate when the no campaign in this referendum canvasses for support from the public without telling them where the money is coming from?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree. If we are going to have the two sides of the argument deployed up and down the country in this all-important referendum, the least the public can expect is to find out who is bankrolling the no campaign. I hope that the people in the no campaign will come clean with the British people very soon.

Stephen McCabe: I see that the Deputy Prime Minister is now to play a role in the health legislation. I am in the midst of consulting GPs in Selly Oak on that. Does he agree
	with his colleague, the GP Evan Harris, that one of the vital amendments is the right for GPs to opt out of commissioning?

Nicholas Clegg: I certainly agree that there should be nothing doctrinaire about the point at which GP consortia become the commissioning bodies in the NHS. That is why exacting requirements will be applied to consortia. If they are not ready by April 2013, they will not be given the new commissioning powers.

Robert Smith: Following the Budget’s impact on energy investor confidence, do the Government have plans to enable this country finally to offer the stability needed for long-term strategic investment decisions?

Nicholas Clegg: I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this issue, and he has spoken about it before. As I have explained to him, it is right that the Government have asked an industry that is making huge profits because of the rise in world oil prices to make a significant contribution to ensuring that we can bring the price down on the forecourt and at the petrol pump for millions of people who are finding it difficult to deal with increasing living costs. As he knows, there was an emergency meeting of PILOT, at which it was made clear by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and others that we want to work with the industry to ensure that we can provide the right environment to foster its investment decisions in future.

Michael Connarty: As well as being responsible for having probably destroyed the electoral hopes of the Liberal party, the Deputy Prime Minister is formally responsible for the West Lothian question. He will know that a private Member’s Bill is in Committee, under which every piece of legislation would be labelled according to which parts of the United Kingdom it affected. That would start a process of denying Members from Scotland the right to vote on all legislation in this House. Does he support that Bill?

Nicholas Clegg: This is a very difficult issue—[ Interruption. ] It is an issue that has bedevilled Governments for a long time. We do not support the Bill, but we support the establishment of a commission to look into the West Lothian question, and we will establish one in due course.

Harriett Baldwin: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), can the Deputy Prime Minister give us a little more clarity on his timetable for establishing the West Lothian commission?

Nicholas Clegg: There is a need to ensure that we do not overlap the important work of the commission on the West Lothian question with the equally important work that we are doing on the reform of the other place. Once we have established the progress on that draft Bill, which we will publish before the end of next month, we will be in a clearer position to determine the timetable for proceeding on the West Lothian question.

Stephen Twigg: Last month, my constituent Christina O’Brien was one of four Liverpool passport office workers who were dismissed because they had been given permanent contracts by mistake. Ten others were switched to temporary contracts. Will the Deputy Prime Minister pursue the appalling treatment of these hard-working employees with the Home Office? They have done nothing wrong, and they deserve to get their jobs back.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great conviction and passion about the fate of his constituents. Of course, I would be happy to receive further information from him and look into the case.

Martin Vickers: Returning to House of Lords reform, if media reports are correct, elections will be held on a regional basis. My constituents treasure their connection with the historic county of Lincolnshire, and do not want to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Yorkshire and Humber region. Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that they will be consulted fully on where they will be placed?

Nicholas Clegg: That is one of the reasons why we are publishing a draft Bill before the end of next month, as I have said. The draft Bill will, in turn, be subject to exhaustive scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses, to which he and all other hon. Members will be able to make representations on issues of concern to them.

Liz Kendall: When the Deputy Prime Minister signed the foreword to the Government’s national health service White Paper, which part of the policy did he disagree with?

Nicholas Clegg: I actually think that the basic ideas that we need less bureaucracy in the NHS, that GPs, who know the patients best, should have greater responsibility in it and that we need greater accountability, less centralisation and a greater role for local authorities are accepted across the piece as the right approach, except perhaps on the Labour Benches. The key thing now is to ensure that we get the details and the implementation right. As the Secretary of State for Health said very clearly yesterday, where there are legitimate concerns, for instance about the governance of a GP consortium or the role of the private sector, we will seek to address them. That will then lead to substantive changes through amendments at the end of the process, in about two months’ time.

Greg Hands: One of the most scandalous statistics in our democracy is the fact that of 5.5 million British subjects abroad, only about 15,000 are registered. What are we going to do to improve the registration rates of British subjects abroad?

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend is right to identify that as a real problem, and we are examining right now how we can improve the situation so that even if British citizens live and work abroad, they can continue to participate in the democratic life of our country.

David Winnick: May I, in all fairness, congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on showing since last May that the idea that his party is some kind of progressive alternative to Labour is absolute nonsense? For that alone, he deserves every possible congratulation.

Nicholas Clegg: Let us just look at some of the things that have been happening. Last Friday—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is quite capable of looking after himself, but the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) has asked the question, and Members must hear the answer. The Deputy Prime Minister must be heard.

Nicholas Clegg: I wanted to give the hon. Gentleman some specific examples of progress: last Friday—the start of the implementation of the pupil premium, with £2.5 billion for the most disadvantaged children in our schools by the end of this Parliament; tomorrow—the delivery of a new tax threshold that will take 880,000 people on low pay out of paying any income tax, and the delivery of a triple guarantee for all pensioners, restoring the earnings link that Labour failed to restore in 13 years.
	By the way, tomorrow is the beginning of the financial year when the hon. Gentleman’s party promised details of £14 billion-worth of cuts, according to its plans for the reduction of the deficit. Where are they? When will Labour come clean with the British people?

Mr Speaker: We come to questions to the Attorney-General. I call Jack Dromey. [Interruption.] Order. I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber, particularly those who are walking past someone who is to ask a question, to do so quickly, quietly and preferably with some dignity.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Human Trafficking

Jack Dromey: When he expects the Crown Prosecution Service to publish its public policy statement on the prosecution of cases involving human trafficking.

Dominic Grieve: The Crown Prosecution Service expects to publish its public policy statement on the prosecution of cases involving human trafficking later this spring.

Jack Dromey: The Attorney-General will be aware of the heartbreaking case of the young woman from Moldova who was trafficked for the purposes of prostitution, deported, gang raped and tortured, and who is now taking legal action as a consequence. Will he impress upon both the CPS and the United Kingdom Border Agency that they have to act sensitively and in a determined fashion designed to end modern-day slavery?

Dominic Grieve: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the CPS fully understands those points and takes them very seriously indeed. He will be aware that the last Government, with the support of all Opposition
	parties, supported signing up to the Council of Europe convention to deal with those who are trafficked. As he will know, that provides for a period in which the person in question can recuperate, for which they are given temporary leave to remain in the United Kingdom. He will also be aware that the CPS takes very seriously the need to bring such cases to court. Prosecution is sometimes very difficult and, of course, witnesses may be reluctant to come forward, but the fact that those difficulties exist does not in any way diminish the seriousness with which the matter is approached.

Karl McCartney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend advise the House how improvements in the performance of the CPS in magistrates courts might be achieved?

Dominic Grieve: The vast majority of trafficking cases—trafficking being a serious matter—are likely to go to the Crown court. More generally, the CPS is always looking to improve its performance in all courts in which it appears. If any specific matter troubles my hon. Friend about the performance of the CPS, and if he brings it to my attention, I shall ensure that he gets a proper reply.

Child Trafficking

Stephen McCabe: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to increase the prosecution rate for child trafficking offences.

Edward Garnier: The Crown Prosecution Service is working with law enforcement agencies and others in the United Kingdom and in countries of origin to improve the investigation and prosecution of child trafficking cases.

Stephen McCabe: Does the Solicitor-General agree that two of the obstacles to improving successful prosecutions are the tendency to focus on prosecuting young victims for crimes committed under duress and, as ECPAT UK and the Body Shop have argued, the lack of a proper system of guardianship to prevent child victims of trafficking from disappearing, especially from local authority care?

Edward Garnier: I think I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. However, I assure him that the CPS does not prosecute people just for the hell of it. It prosecutes people against whom there is evidence and whose activities require the attention of the criminal courts. Those who are forced here and commit crimes under duress are most unlikely to be prosecuted, but I assure him that the CPS is deeply sensitive to the nature of those people’s existence and how they have come into this country. No prosecutions of people who are under duress should take place.

Stephen Phillips: What is the likely effect on rates of prosecution if the United Kingdom signs up to the European Union directive on human trafficking?

Edward Garnier: I think that the Prime Minister announced last Wednesday week that we are now signing up to that directive, having considered the matter. I cannot tell him what the effect will be in numerical terms, but it will have some beneficial effects.

Elfyn Llwyd: Further to the guardianship point that has just been raised, how long does the Solicitor-General believe it will take to enshrine article 14 in UK law?

Edward Garnier: I do not know.

Crown Prosecution Service

Jim Cunningham: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service plans to take to achieve its planned expenditure reductions over the comprehensive spending review period.

Dominic Grieve: The CPS has developed and implemented a structured cost reduction plan, which will achieve the 25% budget reduction over the comprehensive spending review period and, at the same time, maintain the capability of the CPS to deliver its core business to a high standard. The plan covers expenditure on staff, accommodation, information technology, counsels, fees and administration costs. A recruitment freeze has been implemented and will continue for the next four years. Contracts have been renegotiated and the costs of many corporate services will be halved by 2014.

Jim Cunningham: Given the cuts that the Attorney-General has just outlined, how will the CPS maintain its high standards?

Dominic Grieve: All savings are challenging, but the CPS is conscious of its statutory obligations. The publication of its core quality standards underlines its commitment to delivering a quality service and its priorities remain the prosecution of offences. It is carrying out efficiency savings across the board, particularly in respect of its central units. It believes that it can carry out the savings without affecting its ability to conduct prosecutions.

Alan Beith: Is the Attorney-General following up the suggestion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was made in evidence to the Justice Committee, that considerable savings could be made by better handling in the courts of early guilty pleas, as has been developed in Liverpool?

Dominic Grieve: Indeed. I have participated in discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service and members of the judiciary on ensuring that the example of early guilty pleas in Liverpool can be progressively rolled out throughout the country. Other pilot schemes will operate that initiative. The Liverpool example suggests that very substantial cost savings can be achieved. I cannot emphasise too much to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the difference in cost between an early guilty plea and a case that trails on without a plea until trial is imminent is in fact huge.

Specialist Rape Prosecutors

Alison McGovern: How many specialist rape prosecutors the Crown Prosecution Service employed in the latest period for which figures are available.

Edward Garnier: Specialist rape prosecutors have been appointed by chief Crown prosecutors based on local business needs. The number has not been centrally collated, but in January 2011, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that 839 prosecutors throughout England and Wales had the requisite training and experience to deal with rape cases.

Alison McGovern: It is worrying that conviction rates for rape and sexual offences other than rape are down. What will the Solicitor-General do to stop that slide from becoming a worrying trend?

Edward Garnier: I do not mean to misinterpret the hon. Lady’s question, but in my submission, the more important question is the attrition rate between report and the arrival of the case in court. The conviction rate in sexual offences cases stands good comparison with that for most other crimes, but we need to concentrate on the falling away of evidence from victims who are unprepared to take the matter from the initial stage right the way through to the court. I can assure her that the police and the CPS are doing all they can to ensure that the attrition rate is not as high as it has historically been.

Robert Buckland: On that point of attrition, may I commend to the Solicitor-General the use of intermediaries to help vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence in an effective way, particular in respect of allegations of rape and other serious sexual offences? I have had personal experience of such intermediaries and I commend their use to him.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has huge experience as a criminal lawyer. There are a number of things that we can do, and should do more of, to enable victims of rape to bring their cases to court. To be raped is the most appalling experience, but to have to relive that experience through the criminal justice system makes the matter all the worse. We must do all that we can to ensure that those women, and some men, are enabled to bring their offenders to justice.

Domestic Violence

Luciana Berger: What recent representations he has received on the effect on prosecution rates of the provision of specialist domestic violence services.

Dominic Grieve: I have received no recent representations.

Luciana Berger: Does the Attorney-General agree that the success rate of the Crown Prosecution Service is dependent on factors outside its control, particularly in prosecuting crimes such as domestic violence? In those circumstances, what will be the cumulative impact of police, local authority and legal aid cuts on the support available to victims of domestic violence, and on the number of perpetrators prosecuted?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Lady is right that the success rate in domestic violence prosecutions has been on an upward trend—there was a significant increase from 65% in 2006-07 to 72% in 2009-10—against the background of an increasing volume of prosecutions.
	Specialist support services play a key role in contributing to those improvements. If I may make the position quite clear, the CPS is committed to working with those specialist services and believes that a priority will be given to their continuation, to ensure that it can continue to do the work it currently does.

Human Trafficking

Jeremy Lefroy: What steps he is taking to ensure that people recognised as trafficked under the national referral mechanism procedure are not prosecuted for criminal offences related to their trafficking.

Edward Garnier: Guidance has been issued to prosecutors on the prosecution of defendants charged with criminal offences who might be trafficking victims. It advises prosecutors on the steps that should be taken when reviewing such a case. Similar guidance has also been issued to the police.

Jeremy Lefroy: What steps is the Solicitor-General taking to ensure that the victims of trafficking are better protected, so that they are more likely to give evidence?

Edward Garnier: The national referral mechanism has improved the identification of trafficked victims and their subsequent referral into appropriate support and protection. As part of the wider strategy to combat human trafficking, the Government are introducing a new model for funding specialist support for all adult victims of trafficking in England and Wales that will provide support tailored to the individual needs of the victims. There is guaranteed funding of up to £2 million a year to support this. If the victim agrees to assist in criminal proceedings, a number of steps can be taken by prosecutors to ensure their safety and improve their ability to give evidence, including special measures in court, applying for reporting restrictions to protect their identity or applying for the victim to give evidence from their home country, if they wish to return there.

David Hanson: The newly appointed chief officer in the Welsh Assembly responsible for human trafficking issues in Wales said yesterday:
	“Victims have no faith in the police and the public sector in their own countries because they are corrupt and traffickers will tell them it is the same here.”
	We know that that is not the case, but will the Minister indicate what he can do to ensure that people who do not have faith in their own countries can have confidence that we will deal with this issue seriously in ours?

Edward Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, which is that many of the victims come from jurisdictions in which the police are seen as oppressors rather than assistants. As he appreciates—having been a Home Office Minister and through his constituency experience—in this country, the situation is rather different. As I said in answer to an earlier question, both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are acutely sensitive to the difficulties that the victims of trafficking face, whether of sexual or labour exploitation, or of immigration offences.

Rape

Diana Johnson: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to increase the rate of conviction for rape offences.

Dominic Grieve: Measures to strengthen rape prosecutions were announced by the Director of Public Prosecutions in December 2010. These include a new violence against women assurance scheme involving the monitoring of approximately 25% of all rape cases.

Diana Johnson: We are seeing a 25% cut in the CPS budget, cuts to specialist policing in cases of domestic and sexual violence, cuts to voluntary groups working with victims of sexual violence, fewer powers to use DNA evidence and fewer prison places. Despite this, is the Attorney-General confident about the prospects for more rape convictions?

Dominic Grieve: If I may say to the hon. Lady, she asked an improper question, because it presupposed the answer at the time she raised it. The conviction rates for rape rose from 54% in 2006-07 to 59% in 2009-10, against a 17% increase in volume. There has also been an increase in guilty pleas. I have no doubt that, like all challenges, maintaining that into the future will require effort on the part of the CPS and the other organisations, but I have no reason to suppose that, as a result of the long list she announced, it should have an adverse impact on the priority given to rape and our ability to convict people for it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I can assure the Attorney-General that there has been no procedural impropriety of any kind.

Bribery Act

Tom Clarke: What progress the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Serious Fraud Office have made on guidance on the prosecution of cases under the Bribery Act 2010.

Edward Garnier: The two directors issued joint guidance on 30 March this year.

Tom Clarke: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know whether the Attorney-General has had discussions with his Treasury colleagues, in the light of the budget cuts to the SFO and the implications for the implementation of the Bribery Act, given the diminished resources?

Edward Garnier: Both the SFO and the CPS have factored in to their assessments of the financial needs of their prosecuting services the implications of the Bribery Act, and both are satisfied that their work will be able to continue irrespective of the comprehensive spending review.

Amber Rudd: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with the CBI that the SFO must take a common-sense approach to enforcement of the Bribery Act to ensure that it is reasonable and risk based?

Edward Garnier: The SFO and the CPS will apply the prosecutors code in the usual way, and if that involves the application of common sense, they will apply it. There is an awful lot of misinformed over-excitement about the implementation of the Bribery Act. However, I would refer right hon. and hon. Members to an article on page 14 of today’s Financial Times by Andrew Hill. It offers a sensible view on the matter.

Catherine McKinnell: News of the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010 is welcome. However, the Serious Fraud Office faces slashed budgets and there is a plan to split its investigation and prosecution functions, against recommended practice. This uncertainty has already seen six senior staff move to the private sector in recent weeks. What action will the Law Officers take to ensure that confidence is maintained and that the UK is capable of delivering on its international obligations to tackle serious corruption and fraud?

Edward Garnier: By getting on with our job.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Shahbaz Bhatti

Robert Buckland: What representations the Church of England has made on the death of Shahbaz Bhatti in Pakistan.

Andrew Selous: What representations the Church of England has made on the death of Shahbaz Bhatti in Pakistan.

Tony Baldry: There were widespread expressions of sadness and concern across the Church of England and throughout Parliament following the news of the assassination of Federal Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, in Pakistan. The Archbishop of Canterbury takes a close interest in Pakistani affairs, after his visit to Pakistan in 2005, and had met with Mr Bhatti personally as recently as last September. Both the archbishop and the Bishop of Pontefract, who chairs the archbishop’s Pakistan focus group, attended a service of remembrance and thanksgiving for the life of Shahbaz Bhatti, which was held at St Margaret’s Westminster on 17 March. The Bishop of Lahore is currently on a visit to the UK and has met the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss the unfolding situation and the position of Christians in Pakistan. The archbishop has reaffirmed the Church of England’s full support for the work of the Church in Pakistan and solidarity with Christians facing persecution there and elsewhere.

Robert Buckland: It is likely that Mr Bhatti, who was a Christian himself, was murdered because he had suggested reforms to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Is not now a time for us to remember that article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which enshrines the right to freedom of religion and belief, should be truly of universal application?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Conservative party’s human rights commission, makes an important point. Freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right, as set out in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. As Amnesty International has noted,
	“the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a fundamental component of the universal and indivisible human rights framework that applies to all people everywhere, as laid out in international law.”

Andrew Selous: I commend the Archbishop of Canterbury on speaking out so strongly following the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti. Many of us were pleased to see that, but will my hon. Friend ensure that the archbishop continues to speak out on these matters, not least in Iran, where 282 Christians in 34 different cities have been arrested since June last year, and where 300 Bibles were burned in February?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the persecution of Christians elsewhere in the world. Let me remind the House of two comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said:
	“The protection of minorities of any and every kind is one acid test of moral legitimacy for a government,”
	and that applies to Iran, Iraq, Egypt and other countries where Christians are facing difficulties. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also observed that
	“Most Muslim thinkers are embarrassed by supposedly ‘Islamic’ laws in various contexts that conceal murderous oppression and bullying…they need to be heard more clearly”.

Denis MacShane: The welcome statements from Lambeth palace and this House are one thing, but for a real impact, does the hon. Gentleman know whether the Prime Minister, who is currently in Pakistan, will publicly condemn what happened, and should he?

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a robust defender of human rights. I am quite sure that he will not leave the Government of Pakistan in any doubt about the abhorrence felt in every part of this country and every part of civilised society at the murder and martyrdom of people simply for their religious beliefs.

St George’s Day

David Nuttall: Whether the Church Commissioners plan to encourage the flying of the St George Cross flag by churches on St George’s day.

Richard Graham: What plans the Church of England has to mark St George’s day.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England is delighted to have a once-in-a-century opportunity to celebrate the patron saint of England on two occasions this year. The Church of England, along with other Christian denominations, will be officially celebrating St George’s day on 2 May. The reason for the shift in date this year is that Easter is late, Easter Sunday falling the day immediately after St George’s day, on 23 April. To celebrate St George’s day on Holy Saturday would not
	be appropriate because Holy Saturday is the traditional time of reflection and contemplation for Christians before the celebrations of Easter Sunday. The Archbishop of York has been calling for all churches and Government buildings to fly the St George cross on their flagpoles on both 23 April and 2 May. He has written to all Departments asking them to observe both 23 April and 2 May, to ensure that we have a double celebration this year.

David Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend for that informative answer. Will the Church Commissioners be supporting the private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), which would have the effect of designating St George’s day, or the nearest working day to it, a national public holiday?

Tony Baldry: In responding to my hon. Friend, I can do no better than to quote the Archbishop of York, who has said:
	“As someone who loves St George, I have long campaigned for us to have a special holiday where we can celebrate our patron saint and all that is great about our wonderful nation. There is so much to love about England. Why can’t we put aside one day a year where we can wave our English flag of St George, sing songs about our proud history and maybe even drink a pint of English real ale with our friends.”

Richard Graham: I am of course delighted that our noble cathedral continues to lead the way in celebrating St George’s day, and I hope that other cathedrals and churches will follow Gloucester cathedral’s example. In Scotland, St Andrew’s day has been marked by a public holiday since 2006. Many of us feel that St George’s day is at least as important a day in England. Indeed, Shakespeare referred to
	“Our ancient word of courage”.
	If the Church were to endorse the adoption of St George’s day as a public holiday, would my hon. Friend join me in asking the Backbench Business Committee for an opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth recalling that St George’s day was declared a public holiday as long ago as 1222. The House will of course have an opportunity to support the private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who represents the constituency in which Shakespeare was born and died on St George’s day. For all those reasons, it is a good idea to have a public holiday to celebrate St George.

Mr Speaker: I call Ben Bradshaw. Not here.

Education

Fiona Bruce: What recent representations the Church Commissioners have received on the role of the Church of England in education.

Tony Baldry: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. In this, the bicentenary year of the Church of England’s National Society, the Church celebrates its long and distinguished history as a provider of primary and secondary schools, and the society’s founding mission to provide an education for the poor in every parish, right across England, 50 years before state provision
	began. The Church of England greatly values its continuing role as a provider of inclusive and ethically grounded education for children of all communities. During this bicentenary year, it is encouraging MPs to visit their local church schools to see for themselves the outstanding work of the staff in the diverse communities they serve.

Fiona Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In the light of the history of the Church’s role in establishing education for all in this country, does he agree that it is right that those in government at all levels should applaud the role of faith in our country as an inspiration for the generous community spirit of so many in our society—and, indeed, as one of the key building blocks of the big society—through engaging constructively with the Church?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. I am aware that Ministers and officials at the Department for Education are working closely with the Bishop of Oxford, who was recently appointed by the Archbishops as the new chairman of the board of education. The education division of the Church of England has a continual and constructive relationship with colleagues in the Department for Education. Recent conversations have included discussions about academies and free schools, as well as detailed discussions about recent legislation and the impact on existing Church schools’ estate. In addition, the education division of the Church of England is planning two events in Parliament to celebrate the important work of Church schools. An exhibition will take place in the Upper Waiting Hall in July, which I hope right hon. and hon. Members will visit. There will also be a reception on the Terrace in October to celebrate the bicentenary of the National Society.

Listed Places of Worship

Diana Johnson: What recent discussions the Church Commissioners have had with Ministers on the future of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England welcomed the Government’s announcement last October that the listed places of worship scheme would continue beyond March 2011. We also accept the Government’s need to return the scheme to its original scope of eligibility and to set cash limits for each year. Since then, the Church of England has had positive discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to determine how the scheme can operate as simply as possible to ensure that all the available money is paid out and that the Department’s budget is not exceeded.

Diana Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman continue to make sure that there will be discussions with all the key stakeholders to ensure that churches in the most deprived communities, where private donations are harder to get, do not suffer unfairly because of the changes to the scheme?

Tony Baldry: Absolutely. It is, of course, a fundamental principle of the Church Commissioners to make sure that Church resources are targeted at deprived areas.

Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend confirm whether, if lottery money is to be increased, it will also be good news for places of worship?

Tony Baldry: Yes, absolutely. Indeed, we need to lever in all forms of funding for church buildings, which are a very important part of our heritage. The Church of England looks after 19,000 churches, many of which are grade I listed buildings. We need to make sure that we find money from wherever we can to maintain that heritage for future generations.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission was asked—

Enfranchisement (Non-residents)

Greg Hands: What research the Electoral Commission has commissioned and evaluated on the enfranchisement in other countries of their non-residents.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission has not conducted research into the enfranchisement of non-residents in other countries. The commission does not take a view on the franchise, because that is a matter for Parliament.

Greg Hands: May I refer my hon. Friend to the statistic I mentioned earlier—that of 5.5 million British subjects living abroad, only 15,000 are on the electoral register? Can we learn something from the United States, which always encourages its nationals, when abroad, to register with their American embassy or consulate, while at the same time encouraging those citizens to register to vote? Could we not do the same thing?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting and helpful suggestion. In its report on the administration of the 2010 UK general election, the commission called on the Government to bring forward proposals for a comprehensive modernisation strategy, which should include options for improving voting opportunities for overseas electors. I will make sure that Ministers considering that report, including the Deputy Prime Minister, are made aware of my hon. Friend’s excellent suggestion.

William Cash: Has my hon. Friend, as the representative of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, been notified of whether local authorities have, in view of this question and the role of Parliament to which he has referred, provided an opportunity for people to use their electoral facilities and services for the purpose of promoting the alternative vote?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an important point. I am not aware of any such representations, but he has raised a serious matter, which we will of course look into.

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Social Mobility Strategy

Harriet Harman: (Urgent Question): To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s social mobility strategy.

Nicholas Clegg: Today, the Government are launching their strategy to improve social mobility. While our most urgent task is to sort out the nation’s finances, our overriding mission is to take real steps towards a fairer society. To us, a fair society is an open society, one in which everyone is free to flourish and rise regardless of the circumstances of their birth. That is why the promotion of social mobility is the principal objective of the coalition Government’s social policy.
	It is simply unacceptable that so many of our children have their life chances shaped by the circumstances of their birth. Gaps in development between children from different backgrounds can be detected even at birth. By the age of five, bright children from poorer backgrounds have been overtaken by less bright children from richer ones—and from this point on, the gaps tend to widen still further.
	That is why this Government are taking a life-cycle approach to social mobility, an approach where we seek to remove the obstacles to mobility at each stage of an individual’s life—hence our new entitlements for free pre-school care for all two-year-olds from disadvantaged families and our pupil premium designed to narrow attainment gaps in the school years. Then we are creating an extra quarter of a million apprenticeships to boost mobility in the labour market, and opening up higher education so that children from all backgrounds can have the chance to go to university and end the scandal whereby the one in five children who are eligible for free school meals make up less than one in 100 entering Oxford and Cambridge.
	We will continue to encourage fair access to jobs during adulthood and, in particular, we are tackling the long-standing problems caused by unpaid internships dominated by those from the most affluent backgrounds. The civil service is leading by example, and today my colleague Baroness Warsi announced an end to unfair informal internships in Whitehall. We are signing up companies and other organisations to a new business compact on social mobility, asking business to do its bit. It should be what you know, not who you know, that helps you to get a foot in the door.
	We recognise, of course, that Government alone cannot single-handedly create a fairer society. It is a task for parents, communities, businesses, professions and voluntary organisations too. This is not just a Government mission; it is a national mission, and I hope that Opposition Members will support our drive to tackle the long-standing problems of social immobility in this country.
	Low levels of social mobility clearly exact a high social price by cramping the opportunities of millions of children, but they damage our economy too, because talented individuals are denied the opportunity to develop their full potential. Of course it is not enough just to talk about social mobility. We need clear measures and a mechanism for accountability, and our strategy sets
	out a clear framework for holding the Government to account on our ambitious proposals. We are creating a new statutory social mobility and child poverty commission to assess progress on child poverty and social mobility, to hold Government and others to account, and to act as an advocate for change. We have developed a set of leading indicators which will be used to track progress towards a more mobile society. For the first time, as Departments develop new policies, they will need to consider the impact on social mobility. I will continue to chair a group of Ministers to maintain the momentum for change.
	Today’s strategy sets out the concrete steps that the Government are taking to promote social mobility and an open and fair society. There are many policy and technical challenges in this area, and I am grateful for the support of Members in all parts of the House. Of course it is true that most people do not sit around talking about inter-generational social mobility, but at the heart of our strategy is a common instinct. It is the most natural feeling in the world for any parent to want their children to have the opportunities that they did not, and we can all agree that—as I said earlier—in a fair society what counts is how hard you work, not how much your parents earn. In a fair society, ability trumps privilege, and that is the society that the Government want to build.

Harriet Harman: I am afraid that the Deputy Prime Minister gave up the right to pontificate on social mobility when he abolished the education maintenance allowance, trebled tuition fees and betrayed a generation of young people. When I heard that he was going to launch a commission on social mobility, I thought that it was April Fools’ day. In just 10 months this Tory-led Government have launched an assault on opportunities for young people, especially the poorest.
	Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the new Office for Fair Access has no teeth? It is presiding over soaring youth unemployment, so why have the Government abolished the future jobs fund? For many young people, mobility now means a bus down to the jobcentre. Families with young children are feeling the squeeze, so why have the Government cut tax credits? The first few years are vital to a child’s prospects, so why have they cut Sure Start?
	The Deputy Prime Minister boasts about the pupil premium, but will he admit that the Government are cutting school budgets? He claims that he wants to improve social mobility, so why has he dropped section 1 of the Equality Act 2010, which would have legislated for all public authorities to play their part in narrowing the gap between rich and poor? In opposition he said that the Act did not go far enough, but now he is dancing to the tune of the Tories. Next he will be foxtrotting down to the Tory party’s fundraising ball, auctioning City internships for the children of the highest bidder. Is that not the Government’s idea of social mobility? We have further to go, but they are turning the clock back.
	The Deputy Prime Minister says that he is on a mission to improve social mobility. Curiously, whenever he is on a mission to achieve something, the very opposite seems to happen. His support for EMAs saw them abolished, his determination to end tuition fees saw them trebled, and his commitment to no VAT rise
	resulted in a hike to 20%. Is there not a very important lesson here? If you care about something, the very last person whom you want on your side is the Deputy Prime Minister. He may be a man on a mission, but with him at the helm, it is mission impossible.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Lady for her calm, objective comments on the Government’s social mobility strategy. May I just point out a little bit of context for her? Under Labour, in the last 13 years public spending more than doubled in cash terms from £300 billion in 1997-98 to over £600 billion in 2010, yet social mobility did not increase at all. When are she and her colleagues going to ask themselves some fundamental questions about why, despite all that extra public spending—they had money to spend; they have deprived us of that luxury—social mobility did not increase at all? We are trying to tackle this difficult dilemma: increased public spending does not, in and of itself, increase opportunity and social mobility. That is the serious question with which I hoped she would engage.
	Secondly, there is nothing just, and it will not help social mobility at all, in saddling our children and grandchildren with this generation’s debts. I cannot for the life of me understand how the—

Helen Goodman: Calm down!

Nicholas Clegg: No, I am worked up by the idea that the Labour party thinks that it is honest and right by the children and grandchildren of Great Britain to say that, according to the Labour deficit reduction plan, £14 billion-worth of cuts should be unveiled tomorrow—yet it has not had the decency to tell people where those cuts would fall. The right hon. and learned Lady’s leader recently went to Hyde park and emulated Martin Luther King. I never heard Martin Luther King say, “I have a dream: we need cuts, but a little less and more slowly than the other lot want.” We have got to engage in this seriously. This is a long-term project which requires a long-term approach.
	On the education maintenance allowance, let me repeat the clarification I gave earlier: we are replacing the untargeted EMA with a targeted bursary fund—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is yelling about this proposition from a sedentary position, but a former Labour Home Secretary himself conceded that EMA was always going to change as the compulsory education age rose to 17. We have put in place an annual bursary of £180 million for 12,000 of the most vulnerable young people, which is equivalent to about £38 a week. More money will go to 12,000 students, including young people who are in care or who have left care, those living independently, those whose parents have died, those with disabilities and teenage parents. That is our commitment to targeting help at those who most need it.
	On fees—[Interruption.] Well, let me give the right hon. Gentleman some figures on fees. For the first time since fees were introduced by the Labour Government, no one at university, including the thousands of part-time students, will have to pay any fees whatsoever. As a result of the Labour system, thousands and thousands
	of part-time students from low-income backgrounds have to pay an up-front fee. We are getting rid of that. Secondly, we are changing when people will need to repay for the benefits of having gone to university. If we want to be fair, we should remember yet again that it is estimated that the earning power of those who have gone to university will increase on average by about £100,000. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask people to make some contribution to that, but we are different in saying that that repayment should be made only when they are earning much more money than under the old system: £21,000 rather than £15,000. In practice, that means that while, yes, how much universities can charge will go up, in most respects—this is what Opposition Members refuse to acknowledge—the repayments for graduates will go down, so that every single graduate in the future will pay out less from their bank account every month than they do under the Labour system. That is fair, it is sustainable, and it will work.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Understandably, there is considerable interest in this matter, so there is some pressure on time. I therefore ask for brief questions and pithy replies.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to increase social mobility and social justice for our young people is not to leave them on the scrapheap, as the last Government did, but to increase the number of apprenticeships by hundreds of thousands?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree. I think it shows our commitment to providing people with access to the labour market that we are increasing by a quarter of a million the number of apprenticeships available to young people, compared with the previous Government’s plans. I repeat again that this is at a time when we are spending—I think—£400 million every single day in borrowing costs, which is enough to build a primary school every 20 minutes. Therefore, those deficit deniers on the Opposition Benches have to ask themselves again: “How do you promote social mobility on a morass of debt?” You cannot.

Hazel Blears: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware of the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme, which is due to launch on 8 June and will provide paid parliamentary internships for people from working-class backgrounds. Does he agree that unpaid internships are exploitative and totally unacceptable in this day and age? Can he confirm that he has not employed and does not employ any unpaid interns himself?

Nicholas Clegg: I certainly welcome the efforts of the right hon. Lady and all those others who have been involved in the Speaker’s excellent initiative; it is a small beginning but very significant. Of course I agree with her principle that internships should be not only advertised openly and transparently, so that there is a meritocracy in who applies for and secures internships, but properly remunerated. I can confirm that, as of today—[Interruption.] I think we would all accept that the way in which internships—in all parts of the House—have been administered and received in the past has left
	a lot to be desired. Speaking as the leader of the Liberal Democrats, I can confirm that, as of today, we are making sure that advertisements for internships are name and school blind, so that there is a completely level playing field, and that proper remuneration is provided to those who secure internships. I do not say this in a competitive way, but I hope that we can move towards having that kind of approach across the whole Westminster estate.

Andrew Selous: I welcome the strategy’s strong emphasis on reducing family breakdown. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that strong families are an engine of social mobility for many children in our nation?

Nicholas Clegg: Although I may not entirely agree with some of the suggestions that have been put forward as to how that might be reflected in the tax system, I strongly agree, of course, that strong families produce strong and self-confident children. I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for leading the debate, not only in Westminster, but across the country, on the link between family breakdown and repeat cycles of deprivation.

Frank Field: May I welcome the statement that the Deputy Prime Minister made today? Although there are some noble exceptions, the life chances of most children in this country are determined by the age of five. Given that, what importance does he attach to the foundation years as the key driver of this new strategy?

Nicholas Clegg: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and thank him for the work he has done in his independent report. It cast a fascinating light on precisely the problem and dilemma he identifies, which is that many of the patterns of injustice, social inequality and social immobility set in very early and that, as a society, we have for too long embarked on remedial actions much later in life. It is not too late by then—that is too pessimistic a view—but it is a whole lot of more difficult and certainly more expensive to remedy at that stage problems that have their source when a child is very young. I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the approach to foundation years. We need to equip all children with what he has called “school readiness”, so that by the time children walk through the school gates they are in a better position to benefit from school. We want them to enjoy it and find it enriching, rather than end up as one of the small number who are distracted, bored and very disruptive at the back of the class. I should stress that that is bad for everybody in the class, so I strongly endorse his approach.

Eric Ollerenshaw: This follows on from what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that all parties in this place, most major professions, the media and most top businesses have been living in a glass house when it comes to the barriers to social mobility that informal internships have set, and that at least the coalition Government are beginning to show a lead on this particular issue?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend’s agreement with the previous question—if that is not too circular a way of putting it. I am delighted that today a number of large businesses from several fields—the media, accountancy and law—have said that they will play their part, not only by making sure they administer their own internship programmes more transparently, but by going out to schools. I was with a number of leaders from those professions in a school in Southwark this morning, talking to 15-year-olds in small groups about how they could aspire to become lawyers, accountants and politicians. That simple act of getting into schools and showing what is possible can have a galvanising effect on the aspirations of young people.

Barry Sheerman: May I tell the Deputy Prime Minister that many Opposition Members will view the strategy with interest? There are some things that we rather like about it, although we have some reservations. May I also tell him, however, that warm words will not work here? Specific professions have to be taken on in the hardest way, particularly lawyers. It is almost impossible for a young person from an ordinary background to get into law—to get a pupilage or anything like that—and it is almost impossible to get on to a Bar vocational course unless one has been privately educated.

Nicholas Clegg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, although that will not do him any good on the Opposition Benches—he needs to be careful. I strongly agree with him that words and strategies are no good unless they are translated into action. Let me say two things. First, we have to be realistic. This is a deep-seated issue with quite profound social, economic and cultural antecedents, so we are not going to change things overnight. The challenge is going to far outlive this Parliament and, I suspect, the political career of everyone in the Chamber right now.
	What we are trying to do in the announcement today is establish a mechanism of scrutiny and accountability in relation not only to what this Government do but to what all future Governments of whatever political complexion do, so that it is built to last. That is why I am very grateful for the work that the former Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, did for the previous Government on internships and professions, and is doing in his current role as the interim chair of the new social mobility and child poverty commission. He is utterly independent and will produce an annual report on our progress against the indicators we have set out in the strategy, not to the Government but to everyone here in Parliament, so there will be totally independent, annual and regular scrutiny of how well or, indeed, how badly we are doing.

Amber Rudd: Parents and teachers in Hastings warmly welcome the pupil premium that will follow children with free school meals, of whom we have a high number. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just the money but the reforms proposed by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that will make the real difference in making social mobility a part of our lives?

Nicholas Clegg: One fact speaks for itself and confirms exactly what my hon. Friend says: the Work programme will take 900,000 people out of poverty altogether by providing the simple incentive that work always pays. It is a dramatic rebalancing of the benefit system and incentives to work, which will have a socially progressive effect.

Mark Durkan: Notwithstanding what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, does he recognise that many of the measures introduced by the Government, in relation to child trust funds, child benefit changes, tax changes, tuition fees and the education maintenance allowance, will have a cumulative squeezing effect on many hard-working families? Is he not worried that the compound impact of those measures will damage the emancipation of aspiration and social mobility?

Nicholas Clegg: I would test Mr Speaker’s patience if I went through each of the items that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I really believe that hon. Members should look in more detail at how the new higher education funding system will work and what it will mean for individual graduates in terms of money out of their bank account every month. They should look at how we are targeting the replacement for EMA in a way that really helps vulnerable children who would otherwise be impeded from going on into education, and at the effect of the new income tax allowance, which comes in tomorrow and will take 880,000 people, in one simple step, out of paying any income tax altogether. Hon. Members should look at the decisions in last year’s Budget that reduced child poverty by about 50,000, and at the triple-lock guarantee for pensioners that their state pension will increase by either 2.5%, inflation or earnings. I could go on.
	With those measures we seek, in difficult circumstances, to ensure that the most vulnerable are not affected. I repeat again that there is not a world of difference between the £14 billion-worth of cuts that is the Labour party’s position and the £16 billion-worth of cuts next month. We have to bring down the deficit; otherwise we will saddle future generations with a dead-weight of debt around their necks, which will not allow them to move ahead at all.

Duncan Hames: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the charitable status of private schools adequately supports the objective of social mobility?

Nicholas Clegg: The key in education is always to make sure that the vast majority of schools—state-funded schools—have the resources, freedom and ability to provide the best possible education for their children and to make sure that children from those schools have the opportunity to go to our top universities. That should remain the focus of our attention.

Kerry McCarthy: Several of us in opposition have been pushing the Government for some time for details about when they were publishing their child poverty strategy, but it was sneaked out under cover of a written statement today. Is it not shameful that the only way we can get any mention of child poverty in the Chamber is by the Opposition asking an urgent question on social mobility? Should we not have a proper debate on the strategy?

Nicholas Clegg: I think that is unfair. We published a written statement with the document at 9.30 am and I have just referred to child poverty figures and the effect of the Budget on them. Just to be clear, we have said that the child poverty strategy and the social mobility strategy are perfectly aligned. Why? It is because in our view simply taking a statistical snapshot view of child poverty, as happened in the past with the 60% of median income cut-off, does not capture why social mobility has not improved over generations. That is why we have tried to introduce a more well-rounded and fuller picture in what we have published today.

Damian Hinds: I very much welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s focus on leading indicators, which build and draw on the work of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). Of course, that makes it very important that we get the right indicators and make sure there is a sufficiently broad and balanced base. In the early years, which are so crucial, we know that some of the drivers are a healthy pregnancy, early attachment and spending time with baby, talking and reading to her. How will the leading-indicators approach fully reflect those key factors?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman will see from the publication, some of the indicators seek to capture precisely some of the earliest indications of disadvantage, such as birth weight—there is a strong correlation between disadvantage and lower birth weight—but there are other things that we must do to make it more possible for mothers and fathers to provide the best possible start in life for all children. That is why we are determined, although it will take time, to introduce over time more generous and more flexible parental leave arrangements so that mothers and fathers can provide that vital care, nurturing and love that young children, wherever they are born, deserve.

David Lammy: The chief executive of Tesco earns 500 times what his colleagues who stack shelves earn, but his company gets a corporation tax reduction, and now even Leeds Metropolitan university wants to charge £8,500 in tuition fees. How will that promote social mobility?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. Gentleman should not jump the gun. Of the universities that have already declared how much they might want to charge, fewer than half have gravitated to the highest level. Of course, we cannot tell what that will mean for students and graduates until we know what it means per course and per individual. There are lots of waivers, fee reductions, bursaries and so on to consider. I stress again that the Office for Fair Access—this goes back to a question posed by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) which I failed to answer earlier—is there not to micro-manage price but to insist that if any university is going to charge more than £6,000 it can do so only if it shows a significant change in the way it will be reaching out to, accommodating and accepting children from more disadvantaged backgrounds, who are still woefully under-represented at our universities.

Tony Baldry: This is a welcome but huge cross-cutting agenda, which can be judged only on results. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking
	that when the first annual report is published it will be accompanied by a ministerial statement, so that we can all have the opportunity to take stock of what progress has been made during the first year of this policy?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly endorse that suggestion and I would be very keen to take it up.

Tony Lloyd: The Deputy Prime Minister quite rightly paid tribute to early years provision to support families. Can he tell me, on that basis, whether the Government are prepared to rethink funding for early years, particularly given the great success of the Sure Start scheme?

Nicholas Clegg: As I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made more than enough money available to secure the continuation of Sure Start centres everywhere. What is happening—I say this before he shakes his head—is that there seems to be a discrepancy in the pattern of how different councils are responding. For instance, I know that in the councils controlled by Liberal Democrats, not a single Sure Start centre has been closed. The money in the early intervention grant, I am sure I am right in thinking, is more than sufficient to keep Sure Start centres going, and we want to continue fully to support them.

Peter Bone: I do not doubt for one moment that Labour Members want to increase social mobility—they just do not know how to do it. Throwing money at it was clearly wrong. In the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, we have two people who passionately believe in improving social mobility. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is not just money that solves this problem?

Nicholas Clegg: I agree absolutely. If money were the answer, we would be in the most socially mobile society on the planet. We more than doubled, in cash terms, the amount of money spent by Government between 1997 and 2010—from over £300 billion to well over £600 billion—yet social mobility did not advance at all. More profound factors such as education, health, housing, how the tax system works and how it interacts with the benefits system need to be looked at in the round. I hope that, bit by bit, we will, collectively, on both sides of the House, make progress on this.

Helen Goodman: Cuts in public sector jobs will disproportionately affect women. Is that because the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with the Minister for Universities and Science that the biggest barrier to social mobility in the last 30 years has been the advancement of women?

Nicholas Clegg: The welfare reforms, including universal credit, will massively benefit women who want to take up a little bit of work, a few hours a week. [Interruption.] I find it patronising and demeaning to say to people who want to work a few hours a week that that is not a proper job. That is extraordinary.
	On public sector jobs, let me repeat something that the hon. Lady is clearly not aware of. Her own party is committed to unveiling, in 24 hours, £14 billion of cuts
	to fulfil its deficit reduction programme. At the same time, her party is committed to £12 billion of extra spending. She cannot wave her finger at this Government until she tells us how she is going to reduce the deficit burden on future generations, because, without that element social mobility is impossible.

John Spellar: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the story in today’s Evening Standard that he secured his first internship through his father’s influence in a Finnish bank?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, I can. As a teenager, yes, I did receive an internship, as, I suspect, did many people around the Chamber. [Interruption.] Good for you if you did not. All of us should be honest and acknowledge that the way that internships have been administered in the private sector, the public sector, political parties, and—I discovered when we came into government—in Whitehall as well, under 13 years of Labour, left a lot to be desired. I was a recipient of that, as, I suspect, many others here were as well. That is what we need to change if we want to secure greater social mobility in the future.

Kate Green: The commission on social mobility, established by the Deputy Prime Minister, observed that countries with the highest levels of social mobility also have the lowest levels of inequality. That is not the same as relative income poverty. I could not see a measure of inequality in the new suite of indicators. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what his Government will do to reduce inequality, and particularly the way in which it is caused by excessive incomes at the top?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Lady will no doubt know, as she is an expert in this field, the relationship between inequality and social mobility is a slightly fraught area of academic study. For instance, Australia has fairly similar, if not slightly higher, levels of inequality compared with us, but it has significantly higher levels of social mobility. The other problem, as she knows, is that measuring social mobility, particularly intergenerational mobility which is the focus of our attention, takes a long time. We have now set aside money to introduce a new cohort study, so that we do not continue to rely on information that is, in some cases, decades out of date.
	I believe that the tax changes that we have introduced, taking a lot of people on low income out of paying tax, the closing of some of the loopholes at the top, the increasing of capital gains tax by 10%—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady frowns, but let us remember that, under the Labour Government, there was a grotesque loophole whereby cleaners were paying more tax on their wages than very wealthy financiers were on their dividends, and that is something that we have changed. We have imposed a £2.5 billion tax on the banks every single year, far surpassing the single pinprick of the bank bonus tax that she advocates. The action that we have taken in the past few months shows that we want to move in the direction that she advocates.

Grahame Morris: The proportion of unpaid internships in the City of London will do nothing to improve social mobility in Easington. Does
	the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the principal of East Durham college, who said, in relation to the education maintenance allowance,
	“I believe the Department of Education made the wrong decision, and the disadvantaged young people in the North-East will suffer as a result. Many of our learners are genuinely worried about paying for transport to college next year”?
	Are not the actions of this Government at odds with their rhetoric on social mobility?

Nicholas Clegg: If we had got rid of EMA and not replaced it with anything, that allegation would have some force. As I explained earlier, our replacement fund of £180 billion actually increases the amount of money—the equivalent of £38 a week for the most vulnerable youngsters in the education system— and provides significant funds—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that I am lying, so let me write to him to clarify exactly how the £180—[Interruption.] I find it quite extraordinary that, without listening to the question, he should bandy about such outrageous allegations. He has studied our proposals for several weeks, and what we are doing in response to input from directors and principals of colleges. They tell us that in order to address some of those transport costs, lunch costs and the cost of classroom materials they would like as much discretion as possible so that they can provide the money to the children whom they know really need the help.

Mr Speaker: Order. I trust that no right hon. or hon. Member will be accused of lying. I must say I heard no such allegation. I would just emphasise that, on the whole, sedentary chuntering is to be deprecated.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that dealing with social mobility needs a long-term plan? I, and many of my generation, were the beneficiaries of a great deal of help with social mobility as a result of the post-world war welfare state, created when the national debt was extremely high. Changes in social mobility in the last decade are far more likely to be influenced by the policies of the previous 20 years, when the Deputy Prime Minister’s coalition partners were in power. Does he therefore agree that it is far too early to be reach a judgment on the Labour Government?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course, to a certain extent, the hon. Lady is right to say, as I conceded earlier, that it is difficult to paint a detailed picture of something that is slow moving and for which we need more evidence. However, there is a lot of evidence to show that there is no correlation between a significant increase in social mobility and a significant increase in public spending. In cash terms, public spending more than doubled over the past decade, but there is precious little evidence that social mobility increased likewise.

John Cryer: Some 600,000 students will lose out through the abolition of the EMA, even allowing for the introduction of the Deputy
	Prime Minister’s scheme. Hundreds will be in my constituency. Does he imagine in his wildest dream—I imagine that his dreams are pretty wild—that any of those students will see that as a contribution to social mobility?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as was conceded by Secretaries of State in the previous Government, the EMA in its original design was always going to become a more targeted scheme as the compulsory education age increased to 17 and then to 18. That was made very clear when the EMA was first announced. A number of independent studies have been carried out. They vary a bit, but most of them seem to congregate around the conclusion that the proportion of those who really need support to stay in full-time education is no more than about 10%. What we have done with the £180 billion—

John Cryer: indicated dissent.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but this is an example of evidence-based policy. I know that he does not like it. He probably would not acknowledge it if it hit him in the head, but it is something that we are trying to do as a Government. We have provided sufficient money to boost, not to reduce, support for the most vulnerable youngsters and a significant discretionary fund to meet transport costs, lunch costs and classroom material costs.

Luciana Berger: Today’s press release on civil service internships has no detail. How many places will there be on the fast-stream diversity scheme, and how much will interns be paid? Most importantly, how does the right hon. Gentleman expect the scheme to be delivered in three months’ time when the Cabinet Office has only today asked external organisations to bid to run it?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not have detailed statistical answers to some of those questions, but I shall write to the hon. Lady as soon as I can.

Diana Johnson: Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how Liberal Democrat-controlled Hull city council’s decision effectively to mothball 13 of the city’s children’s centres and scrap the council’s early years team will help social mobility in my constituency?

Nicholas Clegg: There is great diversity and variety between what different councils are doing. I know that in the city I represent not a single swimming pool, library or Sure Start centre has been closed, and there have been no more than 270 compulsory redundancies. People in Sheffield look across the Pennines to Labour-controlled Manchester and see a slash-and-burn approach, whereby 2,000 people have been summarily dismissed and one public service after the next has been closed. I think that that comparison speaks for itself.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues for their co-operation.

British Nationals (Eritrea)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to gain consular access to, and secure the release of, the British nationals taken prisoner by the Eritrean authorities in December 2010.

Henry Bellingham: I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for taking up this case on behalf of his constituents, and my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) for the efforts that they have made.
	I reassure the House that I and Foreign Office officials across the world are working to ensure that our ambassador is given consular access to all the men. I am very concerned, as it has now been more than three months since they were detained. As I am sure Members will appreciate, we cannot interfere in the judicial process of another country or request that the men be released, but under the Vienna convention we should be allowed to check on the welfare of detained British nationals.
	It might help the House if I give the background to the case. On 24 December last year, the FCO was notified of the disappearance of a UK-registered vessel off Eritrea. The British ambassador in Asmara was subsequently advised that four British nationals on board had been detained by the Eritrean navy. The Eritrean authorities have not officially informed us of the circumstances surrounding the men's detention, or of any charges being made against them. The men's employers have told us, however, that it appears to be for the non-payment of fuel.
	The United Kingdom and Eritrea are part of the Vienna convention on consular relations, which states that, among other things, consular access should be provided to detained foreign nationals in a “timely manner”. This is usually interpreted as meaning 24 to 48 hours. The fact that we have not received any response from the Eritrean authorities after nearly four months is deeply troubling.
	Since the detention of the men, I have summoned the Eritrean ambassador, Tesfamicael Gerahtu, three times and spoken to him on five or six other occasions specifically to request, and to make clear the importance we attach to gaining, consular access. Indeed, I summoned him this morning for an interview without coffee to emphasise the importance of consular access and of our need to receive a response to all our requests. I have also written to the Eritrean Foreign Minister, Osman Saleh, to reiterate this request and to ask to speak to him urgently. I have not received a response.
	Our ambassador in Eritrea has made regular representations to the Eritrean authorities to gain consular access, including to the Foreign Ministry and the office of the President. As of yet, there has been no formal response from the Eritrean Government to these requests, but our ambassador will continue to push for a response. The Foreign Secretary has instructed British embassies in several capitals, including New York, Beijing, Nairobi
	and Khartoum, to raise this issue as a matter of priority with their local Eritrean ambassadors. They have done so and the Eritrean ambassadors have agreed to report our concerns to Asmara.
	Most recently, on 25 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development requested a telephone call with President Isaias to discuss the issue. We have not yet had a formal response. In the event that President Isaias does not agree to a telephone call, or that it does not result in consular access being granted, the Foreign Secretary will write to him to reiterate our request and to make it clear that we take Eritrea's non-compliance with the Vienna convention very seriously and will look to take tough measures in response, if necessary.
	We have changed our travel advice for Eritrea specifically to highlight the difficulty in securing consular access and in our being able to provide general consular services. We encourage people considering travel to Eritrea to take into account the restrictions placed by the Eritrean Government and the lack of consular access. We will continue to push this issue until access is granted. If this means taking a different and more robust approach, we are prepared to do exactly that.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank my hon. Friend and the Foreign Office for all the help they have given; we all know that the situation is extremely difficult, and we know the Eritreans of old.
	What information has the Minister had from the EU, and can we ask it for help? The United Nations has access to many countries where, perhaps, we are not so popular. Can the Minister arrange some form of access to Eritrea for UN people? Finally, and perhaps most difficult, could the Foreign Office send an envoy, almost to camp on the Eritreans’ doorstep, primarily to get the British nationals out? It is not acceptable, in any country, for there to be no access, certainly not since Christmas eve, or for us not to know whether our nationals are being held in humane conditions or being subjected to any form of torture or hardship.
	I urge the Minister to continue what he is doing, although I suspect that more meetings without coffee might be the order of the day.

Henry Bellingham: I again congratulate my hon. Friend on pursuing the case with such tenacity and determination.
	We will discuss this with our EU counterparts and, indeed, with every EU Foreign Minister. Although the EU and the UN would not normally get involved in consular cases, this issue goes beyond one consular case because it involves non-compliance with the Vienna convention and it is extremely serious. That is why we shall urge the EU to put on as much pressure as possible. I know that the EU generally is very concerned about the lack of movement that its ambassadors are allowed in Eritrea and the consular support they are able to give their citizens.
	I was at the UN in New York at the start of the month and mentioned the case to the Eritrean permanent representative. Although organisations such as the UN and the African Union do not get involved in consular cases, this has gone beyond the principle of dealing with a consular case to the complete lack of adherence to the Vienna convention, which is why it is so serious.

Stephen Twigg: I join the Minister in congratulating the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on securing this important urgent question and on his efforts on behalf of his constituents and those of the hon. Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). The Minister has Labour’s full support in his efforts and in all that he has outlined today.
	I take this opportunity to welcome the efforts of the British consular services in addressing the difficult challenges in this case and, more broadly, in accessing and assisting British nationals encountering difficulty overseas. In the light of today’s case and of other recent events in north Africa and the middle east, will the Minister update the House on the lessons being learned by British consular services in obtaining access to and supporting British nationals facing danger overseas?
	We are concerned by the lack of progress with human rights in Eritrea, as detailed in the recent Foreign and Commonwealth Office “Human Rights and Democracy” report. We are also concerned about the ongoing border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia—a conflict that has cost the lives of 100,000 people—and Eritrea’s alleged support for Islamist rebels in Somalia. Will the Minister take the opportunity of today’s urgent question to update the House on the Government’s efforts to promote peace, human rights and security in Eritrea and the wider region?

Henry Bellingham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and his generous praise for the FCO’s consular service, which does an excellent job, often in difficult circumstances. They are perfectionists. They put the duty of care to UK citizens absolutely at the heart of their work. I believe that they are always looking to improve their service and to learn lessons. I can assure him that if lessons can be learnt from this case, we will certainly learn them.
	On the point about human rights in Eritrea, I certainly agree that the lack of political, religious and media freedoms and the policy of sometimes indefinite military conscription are big concerns. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have added Eritrea as a country of concern in the latest FCO human rights report because of the lack of progress being made on those concerns. With regard to Eritrea’s alleged support for terrorism in the horn of Africa, particularly in Somalia, as he knows, we helped to sponsor UN Security Council resolution 1907, which put an arms embargo on Eritrea. Indeed, there is provision in the resolution to impose a travel ban and an asset freeze. I can update him that the monitoring group dealing with that will report later this year. We certainly urge Eritrea to improve its human rights record, comply absolutely with the UN resolution and sort out this very serious consular case, because until that happens we will be unable to have a normal bilateral relationship with that country.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement and the work that he, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the consular service have done so far. Several months have now elapsed and Eritrea has been wholly unresponsive to our entreaties. Even failed states and narco-regimes tend to take our telephone calls, but Eritrea has not.
	The individuals concerned need the continued help and assistance of Her Majesty’s Government. We have no idea in what conditions they are being detained. Will he assure the House that every effort will continue to be made to obtain proper consular access for those individuals and, if necessary, to escalate the situation so that Eritrea understands the import of our demands?

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he too has taken a close interest in the case. I certainly agree that we have been incredibly patient. We have made telephone calls and demanded that Eritrea comply with the Vienna convention. As I said in my statement, we will now look at more robust measures. I made it very clear to the Eritrean ambassador this morning that there is a range of robust measures that we could take. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary is fully apprised of this and is looking at exactly what additional tough and robust action we can take. My hon. Friend alluded to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset made a moment ago about sending a special envoy, which we have certainly not ruled out. We have an ambassador in Asmara who is doing her level best to get consular access, but we will certainly consider sending a special envoy to demand consular access if it is shown that that would be beneficial and if we feel that results could flow from it.

Mike Gapes: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on raising the matter and the Government on including Eritrea as a country of concern in the human rights report published last week. Is there a possible role for other African countries in resolving the issue, and would the Minister say a little more on the question of Eritrea’s relations with its neighbours?

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because in his time as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee he obviously had substantial involvement with the horn of Africa. On his first point, it is a consular case, rather than an African issue as such. However, as I said a moment ago, this has gone beyond what I would describe as a routine consular case, which would be a purely bilateral matter. That is why we will involve the EU, the UN and possibly the AU. We will do that because we feel that the matter is tarnishing Eritrea’s reputation substantially. Furthermore, I agree with him that until Ethiopia and Eritrea resolve their border dispute and the demarcation of the border, there will be simmering discontent and a malaise between them that will make dealing with either country to try to solve issues such as this or the problems in Somalia much more difficult. That is why solving the border dispute is so incredibly important.

Martin Horwood: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and other hon. Members who are pursuing the interests of their constituents in this regard. I also congratulate the British Government on their persistence. Given the failure of the Asmara Government to abide by international standards, both in respect of consular access and in many other regards, are the British Government exploiting all the possible informal channels, including non-governmental organisations and
	possibly religious leaders and influences, to try to get some kind of traction with this unco-operative Government in Eritrea?

Henry Bellingham: I thank the hon. Gentleman, because he makes a good suggestion. We should leave no stone unturned. We have been very patient and gone through the usual channels, but now we will look at a menu of more robust action. For obvious reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to tell the House what that action might be. I agree that involving charities, businesses, NGOs and Churches might be a very good move. I simply add that on the two occasions on which I have met the Eritrean Foreign Minister, he has impressed upon me how incredibly keen he is to improve relations, build business links between our two countries and work together on issues such as solving human rights problems.

Michael Ellis: He is not doing a very good job.

Henry Bellingham: I quite agree. He made it very clear that that is what he wanted to do, but I made it clear to him in my letter that all that has been put in jeopardy by the total non-compliance with the Vienna convention.

Christopher Pincher: Piracy off the horn of Africa is increasing, with the use of mother ships extending the pirates’ range, and we are also seeing evidence of piracy taking place off the west coast of Africa. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to encourage the Eritrean authorities to tackle piracy? If those steps come to nothing, is he prepared to adopt a more muscular policy to deal with piracy on the high seas?

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because piracy, as he rightly points out, has reached a new and worrying level. There are 40 vessels now under pirate control and in excess of 600 hostages. Of course we are looking at what happens at sea—the Royal Navy has three warships off the horn of Africa as part of the counter-piracy effort—but it is very important that a solution be found on land so that capacity can be built, such as detention facilities and prisons for when pirates are convicted. That is why the UK recently gave £6 million to support projects being delivered by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. I agree with him that it is very important that all the regional maritime states work together to try to counter the evil of piracy.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the Minister for his answers so far on the urgent question. I very much appreciate the work that he, the Foreign Office and the desk officers at the consular directorate have done to keep me up to date on the possible whereabouts of my detained constituent and to inform his wife of any changes. Eritrea is in gross breach of the Vienna convention, and I wonder whether a meeting without coffee is quite strong enough. I urge the Minister to escalate to the robust action that he mentioned in his statement as quickly as possible to get our constituents out of that place.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has been very patient, as indeed have the families of the men who have been detained. As I made clear to him when we met, we are in no way trying to interfere in the court case or in any action that might be taken, but we are demanding consular access. I agree that the time has come to embark upon more robust action. The Foreign Secretary is fully apprised of this and has approved a strategy to take more robust action if need be. We will have to wait and see whether the Eritrean ambassador acts on the demands we made this morning. If he does not, we will have to go down that route. I thank my hon. Friend and the families involved once again for their patience.

Andrew Murrison: In his interview without coffee this morning, did the Minister get any closer to determining from the Eritrean ambassador the reasons underpinning the detention of these individuals, as the given reasons appear wholly inadequate?

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We are demanding consular access under the Vienna convention, of which both Eritrea and the UK are members. All we are asking for is the opportunity to check on those men, to check their welfare and to inform the families accordingly. We are not trying to interfere with the judicial process, and we are not in any way trying to cast aspersions on their detention as such. I think that the Eritrean Government are confusing the two, but we are doing our level best to make sure that they understand their responsibilities and duties under the convention.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that it is the convention of this House that, when there are changes to the Government, they are notified to this House and to you personally. I just wondered whether you had had any notification of changes to the Government, and in particular whether any members of Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party, have notified you that they intend to sit on the Government Benches. I ask, because in the past few weeks some anonymous leaflets have been published, urging people to vote Conservative in Cardiff North, Clwyd South, Clwyd West, Vale of Glamorgan and Gower, Plaid Cymru in various other places and Liberal Democrat elsewhere.
	The website, it turns out, is not quite so anonymous, because it has clearly been produced by people working in the office of the leader of the Welsh nationalists, Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones, so I can only presume that, as he and his office are now urging people to vote Conservative in constituencies in Wales, Plaid Cymru Members intend now to sit on the Government Benches.

Mr Speaker: I have received no such indication of a change in the membership of the Government, and it is not apparent to me that what has just been said constitutes a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has his concerns on the record. If I were a far less charitable person than I am, I might think that he was engaged in the grubbiest form of political point scoring, but, because I am so charitable, I of course do not think any such thing.

Chris Williamson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to my question during Communities and Local Government questions yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) said that
	“no local authority in this country faces a reduction in its real expenditure of more than 7.7%”.—[Official Report, 4 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 729.]
	The reality is that 29 local authorities will see a reduction of 8.8%. Could you advise me on the procedure to bring the Minister back to the House to apologise and to set the record straight?

Mr Speaker: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that he should contact the Table Office to seek advice on how best to pursue the matter that concerns him. He has made his point this afternoon, and it will have been heard by Members on the Treasury Bench, but it is essentially a matter of political argument and certainly not a procedural matter on which I can rule, so the best advice that I can give him is that which I have just offered.

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During questions to the Attorney-General earlier today, the Attorney-General
	accused me of asking an improper question. As my questions were about rape, the levels of rape convictions and how the coalition cuts would impact on those important matters, I was concerned that the Attorney-General should accuse me of asking such a question. Can I seek an apology from him, and can you advise me of the best way of doing that?

Mr Speaker: As to whether the hon. Lady will extract an apology, I do not know, and I cannot advise her on that. I can offer her the advice that I just offered the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) in relation to his point of order, which is that she might wish to approach the Table Office for advice on how she can pursue the matter if she judges it necessary to do so.
	For my part, I can say only that I did not hear anything disorderly, but I shall of course peruse Hansard tomorrow. In so far as I am being asked why the statement that was made was made, I am afraid that I obviously have no idea. I know the Attorney-General very well, because he is a constituency neighbour of mine, and he is an immensely intelligent and cerebral man, but it is expecting too much to expect the Speaker to be able to penetrate the inner recesses of the Attorney-General’s very well-furnished mind. I am in no position to do so.

Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today the writ was moved for a by-election and the announcement made of an appointment to the distinguished office of profit under the Crown of the manor of Northstead. I would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Gerry Adams, the previous occupant of the post, now sadly deposed from his stewardship and office of profit under the Crown, at any point, as is provided for under the Disqualification Act 1975, turned down or refused that office?

Mr Speaker: I cannot give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman on that point, and I fear that once again, unaccountably, the point that has been raised—although possibly a point of great interest, not least to the right hon. Gentleman—does not quite amount to a point of order. I think that tact and constraints on time suggest that I should leave it there.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Sustainable Energy (Local Plans) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Martin Horwood, supported by Mr Tim Yeo, Dan Rogerson, Joan Walley, Sir Peter Bottomley, Lorely Burt, Caroline Lucas, Sir Alan Beith, Martin Caton, Jim Dowd, Tom Brake and Andrew George presented a Bill to promote energy efficiency; to require local authorities to publish sustainable energy plans; to make provision for a transfer of functions to principal councils; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 179).

Electoral Registration, Identification and Eligibility for Voting

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Mike Gapes: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve electoral registration; to introduce identification of voters and other measures to combat electoral fraud; to widen the franchise to allow all those over 18 legally resident in the United Kingdom to vote; to strengthen measures to control negative campaigns by third party groups and websites; and for connected purposes.
	There has been much comment recently about our electoral system and the way in which it works. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which will reduce this House to 600 Members and necessitate the complete upheaval of boundaries, has come into law; the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is in the other place; and in a month’s time there will be a referendum on the voting system for parliamentary elections. Despite those sometimes controversial changes, there remain other matters that, in my opinion, are as serious or more serious and require urgent attention. The Bill before us is about three of those areas: electoral registration, the identification of voters and the prevention of fraud, and the safeguards against abuse by third-party groups and negative campaigns, including on websites.
	On electoral registration, in March 2010 the Electoral Commission produced a report entitled, “The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain”. It concluded:
	“Under-registration and inaccuracy are closely associated with the social groups most likely to move home…under-registration is notably higher than average among 17–24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic (BME) British residents (31%).”
	It also referred to
	“a declining motivation to register to vote”
	among certain groups, and it said that
	“under-registration was significantly higher in Greater London than it was in England and Wales as a whole.”
	The situation since 2000 has got worse, and that year under-registration was at 18% in inner London and 11% in outer London, whereas it was at 6.9% in England, 6% in Wales and 7% in other English metropolitan areas. For new Commonwealth citizens and members of ethnic minorities, under-registration was at 17%. As a result, there are clearly problems with the accuracy of the register of electors in different constituencies, and, given the other legislation to which we have already agreed, there are potential difficulties with the elections that will probably be held in 2015. As a result, we will potentially be in a situation where the boundaries that are to be drawn up in the next two years will be based on figures that are not accurate, and as a result there will be, according to some estimates, up to 3.5 million voters missing from the electoral registers throughout the United Kingdom.
	The first thing that I wish to do through this Bill is to place a greater obligation on local authorities, and electoral registration officers of local authorities, to ensure that the electoral registration process is carried out more accurately than it has been in the past. Some
	local authorities take these matters extremely seriously and get a 95%-plus return of forms from households in their constituencies. Others make less effort and put in fewer resources and get 80%, or even lower, and that then impacts on the nature of the population that is registered and, potentially, on the resources that come to that area to meet the needs of the community. There should be much greater obligations on local authorities. If we are not going to have a national registration scheme, then we should at least ensure that local registration is done more efficiently and effectively, and we need to make sure of that in legislation.
	In addition, we have a very strange electoral registration system. Someone who is a British citizen, a Commonwealth citizen with leave to remain in the UK or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland can vote in all elections in this country. Someone who is a European Union citizen from any other EU state except the UK or Ireland can vote in local elections and European elections. However, someone who is a long-standing resident of the United Kingdom who happens to be Norwegian, Swiss, American, Mexican or Filipino, and who is married to a British citizen, has children born in this country and is paying taxes, can have no right to take any role within our democratic process. Those anomalies and inconsistencies need to be addressed. [ Interruption. ] Conservative Members may heckle, but are they content that people who have been living in Britain for 40 or 50 years, with grown-up children, making a contribution to our society, have no democratic rights? We need to address that issue and modernise our systems to bring it into play.
	At the same time, we need to look at the measures on how we check against electoral fraud in the UK. Northern Ireland has gone further than England, Wales and Scotland, where the Electoral Commission has brought in a permissive approach. The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 talked about asking for voter identifiers and said that the issue would be revisited in future, but it needs to be taken further. There have been too many examples of people abusing the electoral system, impersonation and other kinds of activities. We need to check people’s IDs, not just requiring them to give a name and address when they go to vote but asking for a driving licence or a document of some kind with their name on it to ensure that impersonation is not going on.
	The other matter that I wish to raise is what happens in so-called non-party campaigns in elections. Last year, the Electoral Commission published a document called an overview which sets out the laws relating to groups that intend to put out literature commenting on candidates or issues during an election campaign but are not fielding candidates. There is a regulated period and various other requirements, but they are not working. An enormous number of groups, local and national, do not register, and some organisations have websites. During the last general election, a group called the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK targeted Labour MPs and candidates, with downloadable leaflets and other material attacking people whom they were trying to get out of Parliament. It was able to put out tens of thousands of leaflets without any restriction—negative material arguing against sitting Members of Parliament and encouraging people to vote for other candidates. In some constituencies where the result changed, Liberal Democrats or other people were elected having been beneficiaries of this negative campaigning. We should
	tighten up the rules to regulate what can be put on the internet. We could also prosecute people who have downloadable material that does not have imprints. We need to ask the Electoral Commission to take these matters far more seriously, and that is why I am proposing this Bill.

Robert Halfon: I have great respect for the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), and I have no problem with some of his Bill, which has the worthy aim of improving electoral registration, together with other measures to combat electoral fraud. So it is with genuine regret that I must oppose it, as I have serious concerns about the last clause, which seeks to
	“strengthen measures to control negative campaigns by third party groups and websites.”
	Effectively, he is calling for regulation of the internet. He has built a Trojan horse of censorship under cover of making every vote count fairly. His proposal is wrong for two reasons: it would amount to a huge assault on individual freedom of expression, and it is unenforceable.
	Last Friday, the hon. Gentleman said in an interview on the “Today in Parliament” programme—I almost choked on my hot chocolate—that he objects to so-called attack websites because they can be
	“very effective in the modern world”.
	I agree that all election materials must be sourced and that publishers must be clearly identified. He went further when he said:
	“It is not just attack websites. I think there should be a framework whereby publishing materials about elections, about candidates—either promotion, or negative campaigning—needs to be brought within the normal election law.”
	The interviewer put it to him:
	“You do wonder if the cure might be worse than the disease on this. You might stop people who want legitimately to comment on an election, because they have to go through some massive registration process.”
	His reply went precisely to the heart of the problem when he said:
	“I am not calling for censorship. I am calling for regulation.”
	That is a false argument, because when it comes to free expression, regulation is censorship by another name. With free expression, regulation is censorship of the worst kind, because it deters amateur enthusiasts, small neighbourhood groups and free-thinking individuals. Any increase in red tape and bureaucracy would leave the battle of ideas to special interest groups: the rich, the media establishment, those with extreme views, and professional groups such as trade unions and political parties. The hon. Gentleman justifies his reform by saying that
	“other election literature is restricted”.
	However, I believe that election literature is too restricted as it is. There are too many rules regarding second and third-party endorsements, for example, and the Electoral Commission regulations can be a minefield.
	Let us take the case of Phil Woolas, which the hon. Gentleman raised in his interview on BBC Radio 4. He said that that case proves the need for “greater regulation” of election materials, “especially on the internet”. During
	the Phil Woolas case, I went on television to oppose his removal by the election court because I saw it as an outrageous attack on parliamentary democracy. I accepted that the judge acted under the law, but the law in this case is wrong—a sitting MP must be removed by voters, not unelected judges. The new recall system will help. If an MP has libelled his opponents, he should of course be sued for libel, but the election of MPs must be up to voters to decide.
	My fear is that the Bill almost risks a throwback to the 1950s, when interviewers on television programmes had to ask Ministers, “What wonderful work are you doing today?” The hon. Gentleman’s Bill, if successful, would produce a 21st-century version of that: electioneering on the internet that is bland and without colour. Fortunately, we now live in an open society with social networking and blogging where communication is of paramount importance. The citizen is no longer a subject but an autonomous individual.
	We are regularly criticised on Twitter and other social media sites—sometimes outrageous or even libellous things are written, and I have also been a victim of some of the things that the hon. Gentleman described—but that is mostly part and parcel of politics. I do not believe we should bring in a law to stop it, because it is the essence of a free society. Negative campaigning, however frustrating, is part of free speech and we must hope that the truth will ultimately shine through in a marketplace of ideas.
	We must ask whether the criminal justice system is the right way of dealing with the problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified. Once we interfere with what happens on the internet, where will that stop? The loss of freedom rarely happens all at once; it is usually incremental. First, we restrict free expression on the internet at election times and then we restrict it altogether.
	My second objection is that the provision is clearly unenforceable, as the hon. Gentleman said on BBC Radio 4. Web postings can be made overseas and domain names can be registered in different territories. Even if we restrict one individual from commenting, it will be like the Hydra’s head: another will pop up in its place.
	We all know what Voltaire said, but as a good Tory let me quote Hayek:
	“In any society freedom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have the power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved.”
	That is why, although I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and support much of his Bill, I cannot let it pass through the House unopposed.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
	The House divided:
	Ayes 30, Noes 86.

Question accordingly negatived.

Humanitarian Relief and Libya

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call the Secretary of State to move the motion, I inform the House that the time limit on Back-Bench speeches in the debate on humanitarian relief and Libya is 10 minutes. We will then revert to the six-minute limit.

Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Britain’s contribution to humanitarian relief and Libya.
	At the outset, I pay tribute to the seven United Nations staff who were murdered at the weekend in Mazar-e-Sharif.
	The Prime Minister made a firm commitment to keep this House fully informed in respect of our actions in Libya. I am grateful for this opportunity to update Members on the action that the Government are taking, and on our contribution to this and other humanitarian crises.
	I begin by reminding the House of the dire consequences that the recent United Nations resolution, resolution 1973, sought to stop. Gaddafi’s forces were advancing on Benghazi: as he told his own citizens “We are coming tonight” and
	“there won’t be any mercy”.
	He was a leader intent on murdering innocent women and children, and on shattering lives. At that moment, the world was faced with a stark choice: it could stand by and watch, or it could intervene to stop an Arab Srebrenica. We can reflect on the fact that Britain, France, the United States, Arab states and other countries agreed, through the auspices of the UN, that they would indeed face up to that challenge. We should all be grateful to the leaders who had the courage of their convictions and who ignored the soi-disant experts who said that nothing could be done.
	Many of us in this House have absorbed the bitter lessons of the international community’s failure to act when the Rwandan genocide was executed ruthlessly over 90 days in 1994. We have no intention of making the same mistake again.

Tobias Ellwood: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on the robust approach that we have taken on Libya. He mentioned Rwanda, but we also inherited two interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the window of opportunity to sow the seeds of democracy was not taken. I urge him to do everything he can at this critical stage to ensure that the vacuum that is created is not filled by gangs that will turn into militias, but that we sow the seeds of democracy before it is too late and there is a repetition of what happened in those two other locations.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an important contribution, and I hope that by the end of my remarks he will feel that the Government have taken account of his point.
	The UN enforcement action that we are taking in Libya is necessary, legal and right: necessary, because Gaddafi continues to brutalise his own people in flagrant
	breach of an earlier UN resolution; legal, because we have a clear UN resolution that authorises “all necessary measures” to protect civilians; and right, not only because we have a moral duty to intervene but because it is in our national interest to do so. We should never forget Gaddafi’s track record. I remind Members of Lockerbie, of Yvonne Fletcher, and of the supply of Semtex to the IRA.
	As I speak, the people of Libya continue to suffer at the hands of Gaddafi’s troops. In Misrata, fighting continues. Although accurate information is hard to obtain, there are reports that up to 200 deaths have occurred in the past week and that hundreds more people have been injured. Access to Misrata remains difficult, but on Sunday a Turkish humanitarian ship, the MF Ankara, evacuated about 250 injured people from Misrata to the opposition-held city of Benghazi.
	Over the weekend, I arranged for 2,100 tents from Britain’s stores in Dubai to be dispatched to help those displaced by the fighting, especially around Ajdabiya. The British taxpayer has also supported the International Committee of the Red Cross, which is providing basic necessities to 100,000 people displaced by the violence, and medical supplies and treatment to 3,000 people affected by the ongoing fighting in Libya. Humanitarian experts from the Department for International Development are on the ground on both borders to keep an eye on the situation, and we stand ready to assist further if necessary, as I told the head of the ICRC, Jakob Kellenberger, when I saw him earlier today.

Alec Shelbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend expand on his point about our giving humanitarian aid if we are required to do so? Where would the requirement to do so come from? What would be the spark for our doing so?

Andrew Mitchell: As my hon. Friend knows, we watch the matter all the time and are in very close contact not only with the ICRC but with the United Nations system, and particularly with Valerie Amos, who is in charge of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Britain stands ready to assist in whatever way we feel is appropriate in meeting the humanitarian need.

Andrew Murrison: What role does my right hon. Friend see for the European External Action Service? To date, Baroness Ashton has managed to brief against the no-fly zone, which goes very much against the grain of EU member states, and so far the EEAS’s record has not been terribly good. What further record might it build up to redeem itself?

Andrew Mitchell: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will come later to the importance of the EU’s role in the stabilisation work that lies ahead.
	On top of what I have already described, we have given specific support to those who have fled over the border. Early intervention by Britain and other donors has prevented a logistical challenge from developing into a humanitarian crisis. Indeed, we were able to do rather better than originally anticipated, with British taxpayers funding more than 12,700 repatriations, 6,700 of which we handled directly having chartered our own
	planes. That eased pressure on the transit camps and helped migrant workers to return to their own countries and their families. We have also supplied three logistics experts to assist with movements from the border, along with tents for 10,000 people and 38,000 blankets to help those whom I saw on the border shivering in the early morning cold.
	Early on in the emergency, I visited the camp on the Tunisian border at Ras Ajdir and met some of the displaced migrant workers who have been leaving Libya in their thousands. What I saw and heard underlined the urgency and real human impact of the situation in Libya. I wish to record today the Government’s admiration of the many hundreds of Tunisian families who, of their own accord, donated food, water, clothing and other supplies to the people who were fleeing from Libya. Those selfless and spontaneous acts of generosity are a touching and inspiring example of the very best of human nature.

Andy Slaughter: The Secretary of State is right to say that a lot was done, including by Britain, to help with the evacuation in the early days. Now, however, the International Organisation for Migration is reporting that it lacks the funds to continue with the evacuation. There are still an estimated 75,000 people who need to be evacuated, so what more is Britain doing directly or through other agencies to ensure that the funding is available?

Andrew Mitchell: We watch the situation closely and are in continuous liaison with the IOM. Some 400,000 people have crossed over the borders, and between 10,000 and 14,000 are still on the borders. We are considering carefully how we can help them to return home. As I have said, we will continue to provide strong support. We look at what other countries are doing as well, because we do not expect the British taxpayer to provide the funding all the time. We try to ensure that there is a proper burden-sharing approach to the work of repatriation from the border.
	As well as responding to the immediate humanitarian needs of those who are suffering the consequences of conflict in Libya and on its borders, we are focusing directly on plans for building longer-term stability. In the past, the links between humanitarian aid and post-conflict stabilisation have not always been well understood. We must not make the same mistakes that were made in Iraq. The international community must agree and implement a single UN-led plan to rebuild lives, peace and security, and it must have the full support of the Libyan people and strong regional buy-in. It should include preventing violence and providing security and justice; protecting people and institutions; rebuilding infrastructure; and ensuring that basic services such as schools and hospitals can function. That will require clear, strong, multilateral leadership and a shared assessment of what needs to be done.
	We have learned lessons from Iraq, and indeed from events in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Sierra Leone. For instance, we have learned that it is crucial that the international system starts to plan for stabilisation sooner rather than later. We have learned that we will need to make the security of ordinary Libyan citizens a priority, and that where it exists, state capacity must be preserved. We have also learned that a functioning Government,
	basic services and economic activity are critical. Those are all valuable lessons that will serve us well as we seek to help Libya’s people to rebuild their country.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the humanitarian role that he and his Department are playing. In line with what he has just said about the need for strong regional buy-in, what discussions has he had with the African Union and the Arab states in particular, for which there should be no shortage of resources, about what they are prepared to do in the immediate humanitarian situation and in bringing stability to Libya in the longer term?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I had discussions only yesterday with Jean Ping, the chairperson of the African Union. Indeed, I speak to him regularly. We have also had discussions with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and I had specific discussions on both the humanitarian situation and the stabilisation work with the Turkish Foreign Minister when he was here last week.
	Last week’s London conference, under the Foreign Secretary’s leadership, secured an extraordinary level of international consensus. We welcome, in particular, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s offer to lead the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and planning for longer-term stabilisation support. The Libya contact group, whose establishment was agreed by the conference, will work with regional organisations and the rest of the international community. Britain is ready to play its full part, building on our existing relationships and the work that we have been doing over recent weeks, especially through the stabilisation unit. A British diplomatic mission, headed by a senior diplomat, Christopher Prentice, is engaging with key Libyan opposition groups in the east of the country, including the interim transitional national council and its military council. We are deploying a humanitarian adviser and two stabilisation advisers to join that team, to get the most up-to-date information about the situation on the ground and to identify what more Britain can do to help.

Denis MacShane: I will not quarrel with any of the points that the Secretary of State is making, and I welcome them. However, will he reveal to the House his views in his heart of hearts about whether we really had enough people in place in the Maghreb countries before the crisis broke? Did we have any DFID aid going there at all? I think the answer is no, and there were no UK Trade & Investment priority relationships with those countries. We are catching up now, but we have been absent on parade for quite a long time. That is true of the previous Government as well—I am not trying to make any partisan point.

Andrew Mitchell: I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to any great extent. I do not think any of us envisages bilateral programmes with the Maghreb countries, but it is vital that the EU should engage with them much more in future, particularly on opening up trade and improving market access. We can do a range of things to provide strong encouragement in future.
	I was talking about the importance of our work in developing plans for stabilisation. I sought last week to reinforce the message about the importance of early planning, both at the conference itself and in the margins
	of it. We are in regular contact and working closely not only with Ban Ki-moon and with Baroness Amos of OCHA, as I have indicated, but with Helen Clark at the United Nations Development Programme, Tony Lake at UNICEF and Josette Sheeran at the World Food Programme.
	Of course, as part of its stabilisation Libya will need a strong, inclusive political settlement. As the Prime Minister has said, it must be for the Libyan people themselves to determine their destiny. The international community can help them to do that by bringing together a wide coalition of political leaders within Libya, whether regional groupings, community bodies or civil society, but Libya must find its own voice and shape its own future.

Nigel Dodds: I congratulate the Secretary of State and his Department on what they are doing on the humanitarian front, but as we move forward and plan for the post-conflict situation, can he give the House a guarantee that no obstacle will be placed in the way of the pursuit of the Gaddafi regime’s people, administration or assets by victims of IRA terrorism that, as he mentioned, was sponsored by Gaddafi through the supply of Semtex? They must be allowed to pursue their claims against whomever and whatever assets are out there.

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already spoken about the role of the International Criminal Court in those matters. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard what has been said in recent days, not least by the Scottish law authorities about the long arm of the law and police investigations leading where they may.
	The role of regional partners is critical. I have held discussions on stabilisation as well as humanitarian relief with Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. That builds on our coalition Government’s shift towards greater engagement with Gulf states generally. We have offered to host the next high-level meeting of the Development Assistance Committee/Arab Donor Co-ordination Group. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is travelling to Abu Dhabi today, where, together with the Emirati Deputy Foreign Minister, he will host a seminar on partnership working in fragile environments.
	In the wider region, for example, in Egypt and Tunisia, the role of Europe and the international finance institutions will be crucial. They are significant players and can do much to catalyse economic and political change. We will also work with the EU on creating a new and ambitious economic and trade partnership with the region. That offer, together with any EU aid attached to it, should be made conditional on the delivery of real progress towards democracy, human rights and political and economic reform.
	Our vision is simple: we want open, fair and inclusive societies that meet the needs of all citizens, including the poorest and most vulnerable. We want the economic growth that will create the jobs that help young people to see how they can build a future for themselves and their own children International consensus will be particularly helpful in achieving that. We will play our part, recognising that our priority must be to help fragile states to build legitimate, effective and resilient institutions of their own.

Andrew Murrison: Will my right hon. Friend note the extremely good example that Morocco set, in particular the speech that King Mohammed VI made on 9 March, which, I hope, will herald some genuine constitutional and political reforms in that country? Will he agree that much of north Africa and the Maghreb must look to such role models?

Andrew Mitchell: I agree with the principle of my hon. Friend’s point. Although I have not yet read King Mohammed VI’s speech, I will make a point of doing so afterwards in view of my hon. Friend’s interest in it.

Malcolm Bruce: Given that a major cause of the problem in north Africa is a skilled and educated work force but a lack of employment, does the Secretary of State recognise that international organisations, such as the International Labour Organisation, which the Government have downgraded for core funding but indicated that they would still accept as a partner, may have a role in helping to reconstruct the economies of those countries and giving access to jobs for those who have the skills, but not the opportunity?

Andrew Mitchell: The Chair of the International Development Committee makes a good point. Of course, the ILO still receives core funding from the Department for Work and Pensions. His point is picked up in the Government’s multilateral aid review because we will, of course, support any specific ILO programmes, which we judge to provide good and effective progress on the ground and value for money for the British taxpayer.
	While most eyes are on Libya, we should not forget the crisis in Ivory Coast, where Laurent Gbagbo continues to cling to power. In little over six months, political unrest has displaced up to 1 million people from their homes and killed hundreds. There are well-documented accounts of significant abuses of civilians, including rape, killings and disappearances. Insecurity continues to hinder the humanitarian response and help is reaching only a small proportion of those directly affected. However, Britain has responded swiftly. We are planning to provide 25,000 displaced people with enough food to last them six months, supply enough tents to shelter 15,000 people, treat 10,000 people for malnutrition, and help 3,000 west African nationals to return home.
	As a result of the unrest, more than 120,000 men, women and children have fled across the border into Liberia. That influx has had a major impact on border communities, depleting food stocks to a bare minimum. In some villages, the number of refugees is almost the number of the host community and is likely to increase still further in the coming months.
	More than 10 days ago, I agreed significant support for 15,000 refugees in Liberia, including the provision of food and shelter. We are particularly concerned about the number of children who have been separated from their families. Through our support of UNICEF, we are therefore helping to ensure that thousands of children affected by the crisis are protected from violence, abuse and exploitation. We are working to supply water and sanitation to the very large number of people I described on the border.
	We will monitor the situation closely and continue to press other donors to play their full part. I have recently discussed the situation with President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
	of Liberia. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary arrived on the Liberian border with Ivory Coast yesterday to assess the situation at first hand.
	Humanitarian emergencies can arise from rapid onset disasters as well as protracted conflicts. In recent weeks, we have seen terrible natural disasters in New Zealand and Japan. In each case, we responded to requests from their Governments for help, sending the UK’s international search and rescue teams, made up of firefighters, medical experts and dogs that are specially trained to seek out those who are still alive under the rubble, as well as heavy lifting equipment. We have been able to provide some small help to the people of New Zealand and Japan as they cope with the aftermath of disasters, both cruel reminders that nature does not discriminate on the basis of GDP.
	I end with a more general point. The House can be proud that Britain is known across the world for the quality of its response to humanitarian disasters. That is matched by the generosity shown by British people when faced with the overwhelming need of others—a truth that was so poignantly illustrated last year in the case of Pakistan, and just last month in the public response to the Comic Relief appeal. The UK is a world leader when it comes to humanitarian support. However, we should never be complacent. For that reason, I asked Lord Ashdown to carry out an independent review of Britain’s humanitarian emergency response capability. He delivered that report last week.
	The review set out Lord Ashdown’s conclusions on how we might equip ourselves for tomorrow’s disasters, which experts tell us unequivocally will increase in scale and severity. The need to anticipate and prepare for disasters has been demonstrated many times and was cruelly illustrated again last year by the relative impacts of the almost contemporaneous earthquakes in Haiti and Chile. The death rates tell their own story: despite the earthquakes being similar in magnitude, 316,000 people lost their lives in Haiti compared with 562 in Chile. Inevitably, the poorest people are the least equipped to prepare and therefore remain increasingly vulnerable.
	Lord Ashdown has suggested several ways in which Britain could improve the quality of its humanitarian response. In framing his recommendations, he has focused on how DFID can deliver maximum benefit to those in need while achieving value for money for the British taxpayer. He has proposed some radical changes, which would place resilience to natural disasters at the heart of all our activity.
	The Government will now consider Lord Ashdown’s report, and I will consult further on his recommendations. I expect to be in a position to report to the House, setting out a detailed Government response, during the week commencing 17 May. However, I can say to the House today that I agree with the review’s principal recommendation—namely, that our response to a humanitarian emergency must be based on need. The Government are, first and last, committed to respecting and promoting the neutrality, impartiality and independence of humanitarian aid.
	In the debate, we reflect on just some of the different humanitarian needs that exist in our world today and Britain’s response to them. Generosity of spirit and concern for the plight of others are as much British
	values as stoicism or free speech. I believe that the whole House will join me in underlining that fact, and in working to continue that proud tradition.

Harriet Harman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for introducing the debate at a time of extraordinary humanitarian emergencies, both those caused by natural disasters and those brought about by conflict. I join him in paying tribute to the seven UN workers who were killed in Afghanistan.
	There have been terrible disasters in New Zealand and Japan. Our thoughts are with all those who have lost relatives and are struggling to rebuild. Those disasters underline the points that Lord Ashdown’s important report on humanitarian emergency response makes so compellingly. Our ability to anticipate where natural disaster will strike is growing all the time, and we must take action in advance to build resilience. We know that anticipation and advance planning save lives. I pay tribute to Lord Ashdown for his report and look forward to the Government’s response.
	The Foreign Secretary updated the House yesterday on the dreadful conflict in Côte d'Ivoire, of which the International Development Secretary spoke. Hundreds have been murdered, and hundreds of thousands have fled their homes. Ivorians are in desperate need of food, clean water, shelter, medical care, and above all, an end to the fighting. Women and children are the most vulnerable. Save the Children has said that at least 500,000 children have been forced to leave their homes. Many have lost their parents and suffered unimaginable trauma. They need protection and shelter, and there is an urgent need for the international community to ensure that is provided.
	It is therefore of great concern that aid is being impeded. There are reports of UN headquarters coming under continuous attack and of UNICEF workers being trapped in their office in Abidjan. For the suffering to stop and for peace to prevail, former President Gbagbo must go.
	Refugees are flooding into Liberia, which is struggling to cope. The Liberians have shown great generosity, but they need support. The UN has asked for $146 million from the international community, but so far, it has been promised less than a quarter of that. What contribution has the UK made to that UN fund? Many here, not least my Ivorian constituents living in Southwark, will want us to play our part in helping to alleviate such terrible suffering. The UN Security Council is meeting today. The Opposition fully support the international efforts to bring an end to that crisis, which cannot happen too soon.
	DFID’s expertise in responding to humanitarian emergencies is recognised around the world, as Lord Ashdown’s report underlined. However, he is right that we need to continue to press for improvements in how both the UK and the international community respond to humanitarian emergencies.
	On Libya, although most of the attention has been focused on the armed battle, it was because of the threat of death and injury to Libyan people that the UN agreed to military action. It is right that we continue to
	keep our focus on the plight of those in Libya who are playing no part in the fighting, but who are suffering because of it.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that that action was taken under the UN resolution on the responsibility to protect? Does she agree that that is not a right, it is a responsibility? Does she also agree that had we not taken such action, we would have been in breach of the spirit, if not the words, of the UN charter?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—not taking such action would have cost many more lives. The humanitarian situation in Libya is dire. Libyans must flee from their homes and many, including children, are being gravely injured and face lifelong disabilities, and many are losing their lives. However, as he says, the situation would have been immeasurably worse had the international community decided not to take action. As the Secretary of State graphically underlined to the House, Gaddafi’s attacks on, and threats to, his own people, and particularly his threat to show no mercy to Benghazi, imposed a clear duty to prevent the slaughter of innocent people, and we support that action.
	UN resolution 1973, which authorised military action for a no-fly zone, also required the Libyan authorities to allow full and rapid humanitarian assistance to those in need, and to take all measures to protect civilians and to meet their basic needs. The Gaddafi regime has failed to comply with those obligations. The UN and aid agencies are unable to reach all areas. The fighting makes things too dangerous in some areas, and Gaddafi denies access to others. The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has said that hostilities around Tripoli and in the west make even finding out what needs to be done virtually impossible.
	We do know, however, that the threats and the fighting in Libya are causing a massive flight of people from their homes. Where the fighting is worst, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that only 10% remain in their homes—90% have fled. Tens of thousands are presumed to have fled to Benghazi to seek refuge from Gaddafi’s troops; more than 70,000 Libyans have fled their country altogether; and more than 300,000 foreign workers have fled the country. Facing upheaval and distress, they have needed food and shelter at the border and transport back to their home countries. That is a huge movement of people, and we should pay tribute, as the Secretary of State did, to DFID for its role in the international effort to help to shelter and protect those who fled.
	Those stranded on the border remain a problem—those who cannot afford to go home or those who were in Libya as refugees and who are afraid to go home. Many countries are playing their part in offering refuge to them. For example, Canada is taking 60, Argentina is taking 25, and Finland is taking 70. We should play our part too. How many will the UK take?
	There is a particular problem for women from sub-Saharan Africa who were working in Libya, who are facing sexual violence—there are alarming reports of rape and beatings. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that every effort will be made to protect them?

Alec Shelbrooke: Will the right hon. Lady draw on her work on child sex slave trafficking? Has she considered what opportunities exist for people to exploit young women and girls who are fleeing Libya? Does she have any suggestions on how we can prevent them from ending up in this country as a result of such exploitation?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and of course those women and girls are very vulnerable. Those who are foreign workers could be properly sheltered and protected on the borders, and then transported safely home, but the situation for those who remain in Libya remains grave. There are grave problems for those who stayed behind—both Libyans and migrant workers.
	In Misrata, water and electricity have been cut off, the hospitals are inundated, and there is a growing problem throughout Libya with the supply of food. Libya imports most of its food, but the fighting has disrupted imports, threatening food shortages and price rises. UNOCHA has expressed particular concern about migrant workers getting the food they need because in many cases, their employment has been disrupted, leaving them with little or no disposable income. The flight of so many foreign workers has also meant Libya facing difficulties without Egyptian nurses, Tunisian construction workers, Palestinian engineers and thousands of Bangladeshi workers.
	I join the praise for our armed forces who are protecting people through the no-fly zone, and I strongly support what DFID has done in Libya. We must also continue to back the UN in co-ordinated international efforts to increase humanitarian access to Libya and its borders. I also pay tribute to Islamic Relief, the International Red Cross and the International Medical Corps—humanitarian organisations that are operating in difficult and dangerous circumstances. To get help to those who need it, they have not only to maintain scrupulous impartiality but also to be, and be seen to be, separate from the military effort, which they are.
	As well as highlighting the work of DFID, international agencies and humanitarian organisations, the Secretary of State was right to highlight the role of the diaspora community in this country. The Government play a major role, but hard-working people, often in low-paid jobs, are very generous and immediately rush to help those in their country of origin. Those in the diaspora community who rally round when there is an international emergency greatly deserve to be recognised.
	The UN says that it needs $310 million funding for the international effort, but it has collected only a third of that. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that the UK will play its part in ensuring that other countries contribute to that fund, as we have.
	The Secretary of State has rightly highlighted the admirable and selfless support being provided by the Tunisians and Egyptians to refugees fleeing to their borders. As people continue to leave Libya, however, there will be a need for ongoing support for her neighbours—Egypt and Tunisia—as they face the twin challenges of transforming into a new political future and a major influx of refugees. To tackle the urgent humanitarian problems, international support must be properly financed, properly co-ordinated and clearly led, which is why we welcome the acceptance at last week’s London conference of the UN Secretary-General’s
	offer to lead co-ordination of humanitarian assistance. We look forward to hearing further details as that is taken forward.
	Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the important Turkish-UK-US humanitarian aid team is fully co-ordinated as part of the UN plan? Are the Government pressing for the clear leadership that Lord Ashdown proposed in his recent report? Is the UK pushing for one person to be put in charge of all international humanitarian efforts? The countries of north Africa and the Arab world have an important role, and the support and active participation of Muslim countries in delivering aid is vital. Can the Secretary of State tell us which countries in the region are providing that humanitarian support? As everyone recognises, the need for the close involvement of the Arab League and the African Union is crucial. At the London conference, the African Union was not represented. After his discussions with the head of the African Union this week, can we look forward to its greater involvement?
	Will the Secretary of State also tell the House what the EU military operation set up last week will be able to contribute to the humanitarian effort? As well as an effective response to immediate humanitarian needs, he is right to stress the importance of early and effective planning for post-conflict stabilisation and clarity over who is leading the international effort. Women must be included in peacebuilding and reconstruction, as UN resolution 1325 demands. It was disappointing that at the London conference last week only five of the 46 participants were women. Will he assure us that the UK will do all it can to ensure that in the future women are fully involved?
	As the Secretary of State said, it must be Libyan men and women who lead the rebuilding of their country, so I hope that the Government will involve the Libyan diaspora community in this country. They live here, but they know and care about their homeland. Libya is struggling now, but it is not a poor country; it has great potential and capacity.

Andrew Murrison: It is of course right that the Government listen to all sources of advice, but would the right hon. and learned Lady accept that her Government listened too much to Iraqi expatriates, émigrés and defectors in the run-up to the 2003 conflict? In part, I am afraid, that resulted in some very misleading conclusions and hampered the reconstruction operation after the acute war-fighting phase.

Harriet Harman: I do not accept, as a general point, that Governments, including the Labour Government, have listened too much to diaspora communities. If anything, Governments feel that what they do is most important, and fail to see the efforts of ordinary people who know and care about their country of origin. I would never criticise any Government—past or future—for listening to diaspora communities, which have different sources of information. Obviously, that would form just part of the information that Governments need to gather, but we must listen to those who might not work in the Foreign Office, but who know a great deal and care about their country of origin.

Denis MacShane: We would also be well advised to listen to the Moroccan diaspora communities in Paris and London that are presenting a very different picture
	of the corruption and the authoritarian and repressive tactics—sadly, and despite the good intentions of the king—in that country.

Harriet Harman: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend on that point.
	In conclusion, we have all seen the terrible events in New Zealand, Japan, Côte d’Ivoire and Libya, and the suffering of the people in those countries. When we see children starving, women at risk of rape and abuse and people trapped under rubble, we cannot stand back as spectators. Ultimately, our humanitarian effort is no substitute for political action in situations such as those in Côte d’Ivoire and Libya, and where there is ongoing conflict, in places such as the Democratic Republic of Congo. However, it can help to alleviate the suffering. Ensuring that those efforts are delivered as rapidly and effectively as possible is vital. What is needed for that is strong leadership and a strong and effective international system.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to be called so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I start where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State finished—with the UK’s generosity of spirit. I urge him to sell to the British people all the excellent humanitarian work that the UK is undertaking. At this time of economic stringency, a small minority of our constituents are asking, “Why are we spending so much money on foreign aid?” so the British people ought to hear what he is doing around the world. Like the good Samaritan, we as a nation do not walk on the other side of the road; we get involved when a nation is in serious trouble, regardless of whether it is a wealthy nation or one of the poorest nations on earth, which is why the Japanese people were so grateful that we volunteered to send a team to try to recover victims following the earthquake.
	Anybody who, like my right hon. Friend and me, has seen the holocaust memorial in Kigali in Rwanda or, even worse, the sheds in Murambi just north of Butare, where during the holocaust women, men and even children were encouraged to enter the newly created secondary school, locked up in sheds and then butchered with machetes, could have no doubt that we should have taken the action that we did in Libya—not to have done so would have been a moral outrage. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development are to be congratulated on leading the world in taking that action.
	Gaddafi took over in a bitter military coup in 1969, and has lost close relations in the 1986 bombing and in the current campaign, so he is clearly a hardened individual. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that he will leave until he knows with absolute certainty that the game is up. At present, that is not the situation. Although the no-fly zone has been successfully implemented, all he has to do is occasionally send out his tanks and armoured cars to terrorise his population, and that keeps the coalition forces tied up. We have to accept, therefore, that there will not be a military ending to this dispute; it will have to be politically negotiated. That is where this
	debate is important, because not only are we providing the immediate humanitarian aid, but there will be an ongoing need for nation-building aid. That will be really important.
	I seek clarification from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development; if he cannot provide it now, perhaps he can seek it after the debate. This morning, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said:
	“Our position on Gaddafi is very clear. He has to go. Anything else is a matter for the Libyan people.”
	Does that denote a slight shift in the coalition’s position towards regime change? I do not think that there will be a satisfactory outcome to the Libyan situation until Gaddafi leaves, so if that is the coalition’s new policy, I welcome it. At the moment, the rebels do not have the military or other resources to bring about that change, so we have to focus on the diplomatic activity, and use all the interlocutors we can to bring about a settlement. Saif Gaddafi has a role to play, too, because if anyone can persuade Gaddafi to go, it must be his son. He has had considerable experience of western culture and—much more importantly—of peaceful western democracy, including in this country.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right when he talks about the possibility of recognising the interim transitional national council. We ought to recognise the opposition. Instead of calling them rebels, we ought to call them the opposition; language is really important. The worst people in all this are Gaddafi and his friends. The interim transitional national council and the ordinary people of Libya are those whom we ought to be helping.
	As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend, it was, after all, the Arab League and the African Union that urged us to obtain the UN resolution and the no-fly zone in the first place. We must keep the Arab League and the African Union up to the mark, which is why I made my intervention. They are the people who should be putting pressure on Gaddafi and helping with the humanitarian aid effort. They are the people who, in the longer term, should be helping with nation building. After all, they have a vested interest in bringing stability to the region.
	I pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend said about the ordinary families in Tunisia who have voluntarily given up their homes, giving help, food and shelter for the people crossing the borders. More than 350,000 people have crossed the Libyan border since the crisis began. I am so glad to see that my right hon. Friend is providing them with help, in the form of £8.4 million, 10,000 tents and 30,000 blankets. That is a tremendous effort from the United Kingdom, and one that is to be greatly applauded. However, it is not just the African Union and the Arab League that could be involved. Germany and other European Union countries have so far not stepped up to the mark well enough, but I see no reason why they cannot play their full part—in fact, more than their full part—in the humanitarian aid effort and the nation building to come. The Americans, who pulled out of the coalition for the no-fly zone, could also be playing their full part.
	Having said that, it is clearly important for the UN, the EU and other multilateral agencies to co-ordinate the whole effort, because as my right hon. Friend said, it will involve co-ordinating a large number of agencies,
	and not just in addressing the humanitarian situation in Libya. As we have seen, there is equally need in Egypt and, even more so, in Tunisia. Tunisia is a far smaller country on the map, but the prospects for bringing about a peaceful democracy there are probably stronger than almost any other Maghreb country. If we focus our efforts there, perhaps that will help in our efforts in Egypt, Libya and other countries.
	Many others want to speak in this debate, so I shall sum up. All the actions taken by my right hon. Friend—particularly on the stabilisation unit, bringing about cross-agency support for our humanitarian aid—have been a fantastic effort. They include the Libyan contact group under Christopher Prentice, which my right hon. Friend mentioned; bringing about contacts with the ITNC—perhaps with help from some of our other agencies in the military—and gaining access to those people; as well as building friendships and coalitions to see where we can help to build stability in all parts of Libya. However, the greatest need for humanitarian aid is obviously in those cities and towns that have borne the biggest brunt of the military attack, particularly Misrata and the surrounding cities. Clearly there is a big need for humanitarian aid. I welcome the Turks sending in a humanitarian aid ship. That was a tremendous effort, but surely the international effort must focus on stabilising Libya and trying to keep as many people as possible in humane conditions in their own country, rather than having to airlift them or take them out by sea. Although that is imperative in the short term, our medium and longer-term aim must be to bring about stability and keep those people in their own country.
	In closing, I do not think that this campaign will be over in months, as the media would have us believe. We are in it for the long haul—in Libya and in bringing about stability and democracy for the whole of north Africa—but the prize is huge, because stability in that region will bring about stability in the middle east and Africa. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, what we are seeing is one of the seminal events of the first half of the 21st century. The prize is enormous. From what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has said today, I have no doubt that Britain will play its part—in fact, well above its part. That is to be wholly welcomed. Please will my right hon. Friend go out and keep telling the British people that, so that they do not complain about how much we are putting into international aid?

Hugh Bayley: In August last year, the all-party Africa group published a report called “Security and Africa”, as our contribution to the Government’s strategic defence and security review. We reminded the Government that there are a number of security risks in Africa that threaten people both in that continent and further afield, including in Europe. We urged the Government to retain the capacity for military engagement with Africa. We stressed the need for better co-operation between the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, and the need to co-ordinate policy with our allies in NATO and the European Union.
	I am glad that the Government responded positively to our pitch in the strategic defence and security review, and that they have responded to the Libyan crisis in the way that they have. I believe that the military action under Security Council resolution 1973 has saved many civilian lives in Benghazi and other rebel-held towns in eastern Libya, but I do not believe that military power will resolve Libya’s deeper political crisis. On that point I am at one with the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who has just spoken. A political solution is needed. The UK should support the Turkish Prime Minister’s initiative to secure a ceasefire and, through political efforts, to reach terms on which Gaddafi will leave office.
	I would certainly argue against broadening our military objectives. I do not believe that regime change should be set as a goal or that we should arm insurgents fighting against the Gaddafi regime. If we did either of those things, we would destroy the fragile coalition at the United Nations that came together around the Security Council resolution. If we were to arm insurgents, we would of course strengthen the arms of some modernisers and democrats, but we would also put further arms into the hands of tyrants and dictators, and into the hands of military and civilian personnel from Gaddafi’s regime who have defected.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is talking a great deal of very good sense, but does he not recognise that the logical outcome of rightly saying, “We shouldn’t arm the insurgents,” and, “We shouldn’t seek regime change,” will be a total stalemate and that Gaddafi will not leave at all? That is the realistic outcome to expect. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that we ought to frame our policy accordingly?

Hugh Bayley: Before the Iraq war I took the view that the policy of containment had failed to secure Saddam Hussein’s compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and that military action was needed to resolve the situation. In retrospect, I am not sure that that was the right decision. Perhaps containment, although costly and untidy, might have been a better policy. The hon. Gentleman’s analysis is fair, but if it means a long period of stalemate, that might be better than a war whose objective was regime change.
	If we escalated militarily, we would also undoubtedly intensify the humanitarian crisis in a way that would conflict with one of the recommendations of Lord Ashdown’s recent “Humanitarian Emergency Response Review”. The review says that “where states have failed,” or “when Governments are belligerent,” there is what Paddy Ashdown’s team call
	“a fragile ‘space’ in which humanitarian agencies are accepted”
	and able to do their work. He recommends that
	“DFID humanitarian policy should be to protect and where possible enlarge this fragile space”.
	That would be impossible if the military campaign were to adopt wider objectives.
	The majority of the victims to date have not been Libyans. They have been migrants from sub-Saharan African countries such as Chad, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia who came to Libya looking for jobs or, in many cases, to use it as a stepping stone to Europe. The British Red Cross has reported that some 390,000 people have already fled Libya, with some
	9,000 currently stranded at Libya’s borders. An article in this week’s
	Voice
	newspaper tells the story of a 31-year-old Eritrean, Tesfa Gebrimehedn, who said that he had suffered attacks from anti-Government protesters who mistook him, as a black man from sub-Saharan Africa, for a mercenary. Gaddafi has employed many people from sub-Saharan Africa as mercenaries. The Libyan police beat up him and his friends and demanded money at roadblocks. The Red Cross reports that there are 100 checkpoints between Tripoli and the Tunisian border. Two friends of his were killed by policemen from the Gaddafi regime, and 5,000 dinars—£2,500—was stolen from him, again by police at one of the checkpoints.
	The International Organisation for Migration tells us that 87,000 foreign nationals have already been repatriated, and that 12,000 have been put on flights provided by funding from the Department for International Development. However, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that we in the UK need to work with others to create an international plan to provide for the needs of the refugees, and to provide asylum where necessary. It is wrong simply to leave this problem of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing from Libya in the hands of Tunisia and Egypt.
	There are some wider questions that I would like to raise about Lord Ashdown’s review. He comes to some wise conclusions, including that the UK needs policies that anticipate humanitarian disasters as well as simply responding to them when they happen. Let us take Côte d’Ivoire as an example. It is now four months since President Ouattara was elected and Laurent Gbagbo refused to accept the outcome of the election. The United Kingdom did some extremely good work before the last election in Sierra Leone to role-play with the President what he would do if he were voted out of office by the electorate. Indeed, he was voted out, and he did leave office.
	We certainly need to take steps to anticipate not only military and security problems but natural disasters. Paddy Ashdown’s report talks about the floods in Mozambique in 2006. It describes how Mozambique sought £2 million in aid before the floods to prepare to meet the crisis, and how the request fell on deaf ears. The subsequent cost to the international community of rescuing people from the floods was £60 million. It is blindingly obvious, when the Zambezi river is in spate on the Angola-Zambia border, that it will flood in Mozambique two weeks or so later. There needs to be better co-operation between African countries in anticipating and preparing for disasters.
	Paddy Ashdown also talks about the need to build resilience into buildings, so that schools, for example, could double as typhoon shelters. That is a task for UN Habitat. In 2004, at the time of the tsunami, 150 million people were affected by the tsunami and other humanitarian crises. According to the Ashdown report, 263 million were affected by such crises last year and he says that we should anticipate 375 million being affected by 2015. This is partly because of climate change, but also because the global population is rising and people are becoming more and more concentrated in cities. If a disaster strikes a city, the number of people affected is therefore much greater.
	UN Habitat is one of four organisations that has lost funding as a result of the Government’s multilateral aid
	review. The International Organisation for Migration has also been put on special measures by the Government. It has been told that it must improve or lose its funding. It has been decided that a number of UN agencies that are crucial to dealing with humanitarian crises, including the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, are poorly managed and have now been put on special measures or lost their funding. Surely the challenge is to tackle the poor management and to drive up standards, so that those agencies are better able to meet the needs of the international community. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to tell us, in relation to the four that are in special measures and the four that have lost funding, what the Government are proposing as a management development programme to increase the capacity of those organisations so that they can do their job in future.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for keeping the House up to date on this important activity; I congratulate him and his Department on their quick responses. I shall explore how that will affect the role of the Department. The BBC recently conducted a poll on the public’s attitude towards the engagement in Libya. In the aftermath of Afghanistan and Iraq, I guess that there is a degree of voter fatigue and, perhaps—how can I put it?—an inability to distinguish between different engagements and the reasons for them. That was partly what prompted my intervention on the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman).
	We have been engaged in the concept of the responsibility to protect, and in its development in the United Nations, but this is the first occasion on which it has been fully applied. It is true that the shame associated with the experience in Rwanda is what prompted this action, but it took a long time for the concept of that kind of intervention to develop. It is important to explain clearly not only to the British people but to the wider international public that the responsibility to protect means just that. It does not involve a right or a permission; it is actually a duty to engage in a situation such as this. Had we not done so, we would all have witnessed on live television the massacre of the people of Benghazi. Those people who say that they are not convinced that we should be in Libya would have been exactly the same people who would have said, “Why did you stand by and allow this to happen?”

Denis MacShane: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but he should not gloss over the record of his fellow Scot, Robin Cook, who, along with many others, developed the responsibility to protect. At the end of the 1990s, he applied it very strongly in the southern Kurdish areas of Iraq. The RAF flew bombing missions, and there was a full-scale military intervention that was approved by the House and initiated by the former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook.

Malcolm Bruce: I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that fact. I had great admiration for Robin Cook’s activities as Foreign Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to remind us of them. I hope that he will accept, none the less, that this was the first application of a full engagement under a resolution of this nature.
	It is important that that engagement involves more than just a no-fly zone. We are using all the powers required to protect the civilian population. I do not intend to detain the House with a discussion of where it might all end, because none of us knows. We hope that lives will be saved and that space will be created to allow one regime to depart and some other form of government to develop. We also hope that that will be determined by the Libyan people and not by outside interests.
	It is also worth mentioning that, yes, Libya is an oil-producing country but we should nail the lie that that is the reason for the international community’s intervention. I really do not believe that that is the reason. Indeed, the amount of oil that Libya produces is a relatively small proportion in world terms and certainly not something that fundamentally drives the price of oil—in spite of its current record highs. We need to get across to people the fact that this is a humanitarian intervention entirely based on the threat to the people of Benghazi and nothing to do with the fact that Libya was and is an oil producer.
	It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could clarify in his reply what he believes DFID’s engagement in the region is likely to be in the future. On the basis of the reply he gave to my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), I understand that to date—he might want to update us further—£10.04 million has been allocated to meet the immediate humanitarian crisis. I doubt whether any Member would take issue with that, but we would like to know how much further finance is likely to be committed.
	I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that Libya is not a poor country. What it needs is co-ordinated aid and action. What it does not need is overseas development assistance—there are other places and other people who have more urgent need of that. I hope that he will reassure us that development assistance will not apply in Libya. I understand that he has been given a particular role by the Prime Minister to help to co-ordinate the humanitarian relief, and I think that he and his Department are ideally placed to do that.
	I understand that the Secretary of State intends to reply to Lord Ashdown’s report in May. He might like to engage with the United Nations to see whether its leadership and co-ordination can be improved along the lines that Lord Ashdown recommended. One suggestion from Lord Ashdown was that the Department for International Development should have a director general to focus specifically on humanitarian relief, resilience and co-ordination. That seems a sensible suggestion that the Secretary of State might wish to take up.
	The role of the international community is an important issue. The UK has taken quite a leading role on Libya, but I think I could be forgiven for saying that this is not a hugely British responsibility—other than the fact that we are the kind of people we are. It seems to me that other countries might have as great, or a greater responsibility and that our job should be to co-ordinate and to share the burden, not to take too much of it on ourselves. In the wider context, there are countries whose commitment to international development, support and assistance is rather less than ours, but they could be doing rather more—not least because they lie closer to the affected area so that the impact on them is more direct.
	In that context, will the Secretary of State say more about the role of the European Union? We deliver a substantial amount through the direct budget contribution to the EU, in addition to which we give our own development funding to the EU. I believe that in that capacity it receives more than £1 billion a year. The Secretary of State will know of the discussion in the International Development Committee—indeed, we propose to produce a report on the EU as a development partner—about the fact that quite a lot of the core budget to which we effectively contribute willy-nilly to the EU goes towards overseas development assistance in, for example, Turkey. Some EU member states are strongly engaged in arguing that we should give support and assistance to our neighbours. My point for the Secretary of State is that it might not be a bad idea to reprioritise the existing EU budget to take account of the changing situation. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to expect that to happen. I am not suggesting that there should be no more funding for changed circumstances, but we should be careful not to divert too much of our development assistance, which by definition should go to more needy causes.
	I intervened on the Secretary of State earlier on the subject of the multilateral review. Let me make it clear that I have no problem with the Government’s decision on the International Labour Organisation, and I completely take the point that the core funding still comes from Her Majesty’s Government, but through a different Department. I was anxious to test the Secretary of State and his reply was entirely where I wanted him go—to the effect that, where the ILO can be a useful partner, as it can be in parts of the world, we should work directly with it. I was reassured by that answer, as across north Africa—indeed, this is also a salutary lesson for what we are trying to do in sub-Saharan Africa—there is no point in giving people skills, hope and aspiration and then failing to deliver livelihood opportunities.
	When we boil it down, that is the core of the problem that has led to an explosion in these communities of youngish people who feel—and they are entitled to feel—that they have not been given their space in the sun, which their education and the means of the countries they live in could have provided them. The key to the future must surely be a more dynamic programme designed to give people jobs and opportunities and to share their country’s resources more equally. To the extent that we can help to co-ordinate such a programme and assist with it, that seems to me to be an entirely legitimate role. It is not all about money; it is about engagement, partnership, understanding and allowing people’s aspirations to find their own level rather than imposing solutions from outside.
	In conclusion, let me make passing reference to the situation in the Côte d’Ivoire—and, by association and neighbourhood consequence, Liberia. We all welcome the fact that the Government have responded quickly and in a practical way and that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is evaluating the situation on the ground. That is precisely what we would expect the Government to do, but I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that this should not be a priority area for the UK. It is an immediate crisis and we want to be part of assisting to resolve it, but again other countries and international agencies are better equipped than we are to take responsibility for
	the long-term future of the Côte d’Ivoire—as and when, hopefully, a legitimate Government can be put in place without being assaulted and can proceed with its proper job of delivering for the people of the region. Is it not ironic, however, that this is taking place next door to Ghana, which has over the last 12 months had a wholly successful election? The opposition won and the Government were not happy. The Administration changed, however—as far as I am aware, without even a broken nose, let alone anything more serious. It seems an ironic, almost tragic situation, that two countries that are so similar in so many ways and exist next door to each other are finding such a different destiny. One hopes that partnership between those countries will, in the longer run, show how best practice can deliver the best results. To the extent that our Department for International Development can assist in that, I believe that it would have the support of the whole House.

Dan Jarvis: The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Tripoli and Benghazi—it is sobering to see how in 2011 those names are again at the forefront of our minds. As we debate national security, humanitarian aid and human rights, we must ask ourselves, “How has it come to this?” Was the international community too hasty to consign their dealings with these countries to history, failing to recognise a role in ensuring stability in those regions? That is a mistake that we repeat at our peril and one that we must not forget as we address the current and very real situation in Libya.
	The other day in Barnsley, I was asked why we should be dragged into another foreign conflict—somebody else’s war. I was asked why we should feel obligated to ask our courageous RAF pilots to fly into the airspace above a foreign country in conflict. I was asked why we should send our brave sailors and soldiers aboard warships into the waters of the state responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. Those questions made me consider why—why it was important to my constituents that our country among the international community should take the lead in securing a peaceful future for the people of Libya. Why us?
	I then remembered why it should be us. It is because we have no real choice. This country has a long history of standing up for justice and the rule of law, of standing up for the protection of the vulnerable and of standing up for the men, women and children whose own Governments have persecuted and abandoned them. Our country and our people should not walk by on the other side of the street, ignoring the weak, the lost, the unprotected and the dispossessed. Walking on by is not an option because we know that the right thing to do is to stand up for others when we can and when it is legally and morally the right thing to do.
	The British Government have a strong tradition of fighting for collective security, not selective security. Whether on the streets of Pristina or Freetown or elsewhere, we believe in standing up for the security of all. When we do act, however, clear objectives and decisive action are essential if the people of Libya are to be protected from a cut-throat regime and a humanitarian disaster is to be averted. Already bodies lie in the streets as lives are cut short by the bloody hand of an ever more desperate dictator.
	The doctrine of the international community should be pursued, and never more so than now. People want to know not only that we are right to take action, but that we have clear objectives and are going to succeed. The humanitarian situation in Libya is extremely worrying. Thousands of people on the Libyan borders await evacuation, and within the country humanitarian access is still very limited. Daniel Korski, a former special adviser to the Secretary of State who returned from Libya recently, has said:
	“There is less of a crisis than I thought but around the war-caught cities the problem is severe. While we should eschew a larger ceasefire, a ‘humanitarian break’ for Misrata may be worth contemplating to ensure people get out and receive medical attention. We also need to ensure that the opposition forces have medical supplies and perhaps even medical expertise.”
	The international community has been caught between applauding the wave of democratic change—which will help, not hinder, our country’s security—and the fear of radical elements which drove our support for authoritarian regimes in the past. Given our history in the region, it is clearly far preferable for any humanitarian intervention to be instigated and led by Arab nations, but we must be ready to assist. The nature of that assistance requires very careful consideration, and we should be extremely cautious about providing any materials that might further inflame the conflict, but it is right for medical and humanitarian supplies to be made available in order to alleviate human suffering.
	Unfolding events in Libya present genuine dilemmas. These are difficult judgments for any Government, and the international community, to make. Our country has not always struck the right balance between securing pragmatic but short-term political victories and putting in place enduring legacies that secure peace in the long term, and we must get the balance right now. Gaddafi’s own future highlights the difficult and complex judgments that must be made. Given the Foreign Secretary’s comments last week, I hope that the Government’s commitment to the International Criminal Court will not be sidestepped in the pursuit of a pragmatic political solution for the people of Libya, but I fully accept that such a judgment requires very careful deliberation. Nevertheless, I believe that we must act, because we live in a world in which isolationism has ceased to have a meaningful reason to exist. Specifically today, we have a clear interest in preventing the re-subjugation of the people of Libya to an unbalanced and brutal dictatorship. There is a clear legal and moral imperative to act, and it is in our country’s own national interest for us to do so.
	Detailed planning is vital to preparation for the post-conflict period. We must satisfy ourselves that we have made every effort to construct a plan for what will happen when the fighting stops. We must learn the lessons of the past: stabilisation and reconstruction are both political priorities, and we must not “deBa’athify” the state just for the sake of it, but give an incoming regime every opportunity to succeed.
	The Government have assured us that detailed work is taking place. That work is vital, but the Whitehall culture does not always lend itself to cross-departmental co-operation. Whitehall agendas can still prevail—joined-up government is still an aspiration and not yet a reality—but Whitehall can also engender a culture of “group think” which sometimes produces templated westernised solutions
	that are not robust enough, or are too lofty in their ambitions, to survive contact with complex situations in other parts of the world.
	While the Government rightly focus on unfolding events in Libya, in Côte d’Ivoire, in Japan, in New Zealand and elsewhere, we should not forget the ongoing insurgency in Afghanistan and our crucial role in securing a peaceful and enduring political settlement for the people there. However, there must come a point at which the Government’s focus pulls back from the immediate here and now, and they conduct a rigorous analysis of the implications of recent events for “Britain’s role in the world”.
	The “question four” moment is the point in the military planning cycle at which, before the final commitment to a plan, a last-minute check of events is conducted to establish whether the strategic or tactical situations have changed to such an extent that it is necessary to rethink or even abandon plans. This is a question four moment: the point at which we should accept that the strategic defence and security review needs—at the very least—a rescrub, or a new chapter setting out the contribution that this country intends to make to the international community and, if possible, the mechanisms that it intends to deploy to best achieve the desired effect. As with any security, foreign policy, defence or development review, critically, if the Government will the ends they must also will the commensurate means.

Nicola Blackwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Let me begin by adding my tribute to the servicemen and women who are risking their lives in an effort to protect civilians in Libya. Regardless of the international debate on the parameters of the coalition’s intervention, their role is honourable, and their families can be justly proud of their bravery and assured of our support.
	As the Secretary of State said, we should not forget why we got into this, and why, even after Iraq, the House voted so overwhelmingly in favour of humanitarian action and the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya. It was because Colonel Gaddafi’s threats of vengeance on his own people were only too credible in the light of his record so far. It was because he told the world:
	“There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight...If the world gets crazy with us we will get crazy too. We will respond. We will make their lives hell because they are making our lives hell. They will never have peace.”
	It was because Benghazi’s 670,000 civilians would probably have been massacred, Libyan troops were already committing atrocities in the outlying areas of the city, and Colonel Gaddafi’s men had received orders to go from house to house and from room to room to burn out the opposition.
	We are all anxious not to repeat the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are anxious for mission creep to be avoided at all costs, and for the international community’s actions in Libya to present no opportunity for critics to claim that western humanitarian action is code for regime change or wider political interference. Far too
	often, however, the international community has stood by when genocide was imminent, paralysed by lack of consensus and fear of precedent. As has already been said, we must ensure that we learn the lessons of Rwanda and Darfur as well as those of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must ensure that we live up to the ideals of the “responsibility to protect”, but we must also ensure that all action that is taken is visibly based on wholly humanitarian motives: that it is based on the moral imperative to protect civilians, rather than on the western temptation to impose our own political solutions.
	It must be said that, so far, the system has worked far better and far more quickly than most international responses to state-sponsored violence. The fact that in just six weeks we have secured two Security Council resolutions and NATO control of a broad international military force, and have averted a humanitarian crisis as hundreds of thousands of people have fled Libya, is nothing short of extraordinary. I join my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) in congratulating the Government on their leadership in driving this momentum, and on the care that they have taken to give the House regular updates and opportunities for debate. Nevertheless, a huge amount of work and careful judgment is still required if progress on Libya is to continue in a positive direction. Let me give a couple of examples.
	As we have learned in recent years, development and reconstruction are not simply add-ons to a successful military operation. They are, in fact, integral to the success or failure of an operation, and short, medium and long-term planning must incorporate detailed development strategies. I was encouraged to hear the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the issues of urgent humanitarian assistance and the needs of Libya after the conflict were considered at the London conference, and that the British diplomatic mission led by Christopher Prentice will be making regular visits to Benghazi to understand the situation of the opposition and civilians on the ground better. However, may I ask for an update as to how DFID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence are working to ensure there is a joined-up approach on the early and sustained provision of humanitarian assistance, and what role the UK will be playing in developing longer-term reconstruction strategies for Libya? For example, have these issues been raised with the interim transitional national council, NATO command and control, and the contact group, and will there be an ongoing forum to ensure that Libyan people are included in this process? In addition, there is some concern that at this point the opposition may not have sufficient training, organisation and leadership structures to ensure a smooth transition to a post-Gaddafi Libyan leadership. Given that the military part of this operation is likely to prove the most straightforward, has there been any discussion of UK Government support for capacity building for the ITNC leadership? Investment in that now is likely to bear significant dividends as Libya progresses towards stabilisation.
	Another problem facing the international community is, of course, that while a measure of protection can be provided by a no-fly zone and the destruction of Gaddafi’s larger military capability, current coalition activity cannot protect civilians from small arms fire or other forms of abuse and oppression. Given Amnesty’s reports of hundreds
	of missing and detained civilians and Gaddafi’s record of torture and violent suppression of opposition, what assessment has the Secretary of State for International Development been able to make of the security situation facing Libyans on the ground in different parts of the country? Are we able to get a sense of the situation from the British mission to Benghazi, the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the reports of those fleeing the country? In particular, I am concerned about reports of 80,000 internally displaced persons, with 9,000 refugees massed at the Tunisian border. Given that a disproportionate number of refugees tend to be women and children, can the Secretary of State tell the House what measures have been put in place to ensure the protection of women and children in these temporary camps? Protection of Libyan civilians does not end at the border, and the history of refugee planning and protection shows that the international community does not always take into account the distinctive needs of displaced women and girls.
	Finally, given the recent media coverage of the Libyan woman claiming to have been raped by Gaddafi’s soldiers, can the Secretary of State give an assessment of the incidence of sexual and gender-based violence in Libya? As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, and as the Secretary of State knows only too well, women and girls suffer disproportionately in times of conflict and are particularly at risk of being targeted in civil war scenarios such as this one. So far, I have seen estimates of the number of dead and wounded, and estimates of the number of internally displaced persons and refugees, but not a single official estimate of the number of women and children subjected to sexual and gender-based violence, despite the fact that such atrocities are endemic in modern conflict. I remind the Secretary of State that while schools and roads can be rebuilt, communities torn apart by torture and sexual abuse are not so easily restored, and if proper restorative justice systems are not put in place early, the lasting legacy of these events will be to perpetuate violence and undermine peace building.
	In light of that, will the Secretary of State tell me what consideration has been given to the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1325 in NATO and the contact group, and in humanitarian responses? As he knows, resolution 1325 calls for the prevention of sexual and gender-based violence and stresses the need to include women in all peace negotiations. It has been worrying that so far in all the statements and speeches of which I am aware there has been no reference to women in terms of the protection agenda or the political process. Is the British diplomatic mission to Benghazi making any efforts to contact grass-roots women’s groups or to establish the risks currently faced by women on the ground? Has the Secretary of State had any discussions on this subject with other UK Departments, or with NATO and UN counterparts?
	If the Secretary of State is unable to answer those questions today—I did not give him notice of this speech —perhaps he will agree to meet me, the all-party group on women, peace and security and the Gender Action for Peace and Security coalition of non-governmental organisations, to hear their concerns on this topic. We are taking great care to make it clear that we are complying with Security Council resolution 1973, but the women and girls of Libya—not to mention their
	husbands, brothers and sons—deserve to have us take the same care to comply with resolution 1325. We have seen time and again that we will not achieve our goals of peace and security in such regions if we do not include women. If we get just one thing right with the humanitarian planning for the future of Libya, let it be to play our part in fully protecting women and girls, and to do all we can to ensure women are given every opportunity to participate fully in peace building and reconstruction. If I can put it another way: no women, no peace.

Andy Slaughter: I welcome this opportunity to debate the humanitarian consequences of the Libyan revolution. We have rightly had several opportunities to question the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary specifically about the military and political aspects of the crisis, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, the intervention in Libya was a military response to a humanitarian situation, and it is also clear that there is an interaction between the military and humanitarian aspects.
	It is my understanding that the purpose of UN Security Council resolution 1973 was to neutralise the attacks on civilians, particularly around Benghazi, and, as a corollary of that, to avoid any additional civilian casualties. That was the basis on which I voted for the motion supporting the resolution in this House. The purpose of the resolution was therefore not to act as a support arm for rebel forces or to enable the arming of the rebels, nor to authorise regime change. However, in the weeks since we debated—and passed by an overwhelmingly majority—the motion on that resolution in Parliament, those distinctions have not been entirely clear. It is also far from clear what the outcome of the intervention is likely to be. Is there going to be a coup? Is the country going to be divided into a western and eastern half? Is there going to be a military victory for one side or the other, or is there going to be a continuing military situation, whether involving rebel forces or warring armies, with fighting going on for long into the future, as we have seen in Afghanistan and elsewhere? I was struck by a comment on the humanitarian situation that was made by a representative of an American think-tank, the Centre for a New American Security:
	“The ultimate objective of this operation is not particularly clear, and that makes it difficult to think about contingency planning, because you have to start with an outcome you want to achieve, and then work out how you do humanitarian assistance”.
	I feel that in an effort to second-guess or influence the outcome of what is currently happening in Libya, there are moves in particular towards arming the rebels. Although the Foreign Secretary made it clear as recently as yesterday that the UK would supply communications, and not military, equipment, US Secretary Clinton has not been as clear. She said:
	“It is our interpretation that 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time.”
	There are increasing noises along those lines, however. If the west is intending to arm the rebels, it is clearly not going to arm them without also providing training, given the state of the rebel forces. If we are going to provide training, that inevitably means there will be both a long-term engagement and troops on the ground.
	I also note the recent comments of Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, who said:
	“In general terms we are now planning on the basis of at least six months, and we’ll see where we go from there.”
	None of these prognoses is particularly welcome given the lesson of Iraq, and in these respects what is happening in Libya looks more and more like what happened in Iraq.

Tobias Ellwood: May I urge caution in drawing comparisons with Iraq, whether or not we agree that we should have gone in there? The big difference between the approach of this Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Libya and the previous approach to Iraq is that he is at the forefront in leading a campaign to make sure that good governance is introduced and there is reconstruction and development. That did not happen in Iraq, where, if I remember correctly, Clare Short, then Secretary of State for International Development, sent a diktat to the directors in her Department telling them not to get involved in that operation and campaign because she thought the war was illegal. That put us on the back foot, and kept us in Iraq for many, many more years.

Andy Slaughter: The last thing I want to do is make this party political, and I am sure other hon. Members would support me in that. I am talking not about the detail of what is happening, but about the impression that is being given, which will have a knock-on effect on coalition support. That impression is that the west’s embroilment is going deeper and further, beyond the terms of the resolution, and so it will, in time, fracture that coalition.
	I return to the specific humanitarian points and I wish to raise three issues with the Secretary of State. If he is not able to deal with them today, it would be helpful to receive a further briefing from the Government, either an oral or written one, to cover these areas. The first issue is displacement. It is estimated that about 500,000 people have been displaced in Libya as a consequence of the fighting so far, the overwhelming majority of whom—perhaps 90%—are migrants. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, about 80,000 Egyptians and about 20,000 Tunisians have been repatriated. I am somewhat confused by that, because the most recent Library briefing says that up to 1.5 million migrants were in Libya before the crisis and that a substantial number of them were Egyptian. When I was in Cairo two weeks ago, the Egyptian Government and others were saying that we were dealing with a substantially higher number of Egyptians. Can the Secretary of State clarify where those migrant workers and residents are now? This concern for their own citizens in Libya is a substantive reason why the Egyptians have been reluctant to become more involved in the situation, despite having powerful armed forces on the border.
	We did a good job, as did the international community, in moving Bangladeshi, Filipino and Nigerian migrants working in the oil and other industries in Libya out at a relatively early stage. As has been mentioned, we have not done such a good job in relation to sub-Saharan African populations. That is partly a consequence of Gaddafi’s policy of opening up Libya in years gone by; he turned away from the Arab world and towards
	sub-Saharan Africa, welcoming a tide of millions of immigrants from there. A substantial number, perhaps more than 100,000, remain in Libya and they have very little by way of resources. As has been said, they are the targets for violent attack by Libyans who think that they may be mercenaries or supporters of the Gaddafi regime. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) gave examples of these serious and damaging violent attacks, and we need to examine the matter. One response for these people is to try to get out of the country by any means possible; hence the boats going over to Italy and Malta. Many people have been lost at sea as a consequence and some have been given a very dusty welcome, with the situation being exploited politically by Berlusconi and others. That is perhaps at the depth of the humanitarian crisis.
	We also face the issue of some Libyans crossing the border. Their number is relatively small compared with these other figures, at perhaps 20,000, but perhaps twice that number are internally displaced. If military action escalates, with or without the support of the coalition, the likelihood is that the number of internally displaced refugees will grow hugely. The military action has severe implications for humanitarian relief.
	Secondly, I ask the Secretary of State to consider the logistics of the situation. Access to the east of the country is not so bad, and I understand that UNHCR people are going back there later this week, but despite the fact that some UNHCR employees are in Tripoli, the west is almost off limits. The situation in places such as Misrata is very severe. The Turkish ship that courageously went in after waiting outside the dock for four days was going to remove about 100 people. It did take off about 250 seriously injured people and their relatives, but it left many thousands, including about 4,000 Egyptians, who were trying to get on the ship. I would not expect the Secretary of State to comment on what relief operations are planned for Misrata, but clearly it is the most serious situation, as people are being killed every day and no supplies, medical or otherwise, are reaching the town. That is the place in most urgent need at the moment.
	Many organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Tunisian and Egyptian Red Crescent, and Islamic Relief, are engaged heavily where they can be, both in Libya and on the borders. I repeat what I said in my intervention: the funds are not necessarily available. I understand that only about 36% of the £310 million flash appeal funds sought have actually been raised, so there is a crying need for additional funding. That is why the evacuation of people from the border camps has slowed almost to a trickle. We face not only a problem of access, particularly in the west of the country, but a problem of funding. Notwithstanding the Government’s efforts so far, they ought to turn their attention to that again.
	The final point I shall deal with is the question of justice. A reference has been made to the International Criminal Court, and in my many visits to Gaza I have been struck by the fact that after people have suffered military action, they want to have not only financial and substantive relief, but justice. They also want those who have caused them harm to be dealt with by the rule of law. It is very important that the international community steps in at that point and that even those from the regime who are seeking refuge at the moment will in due
	course be called to account. That is as important for the people of Libya in the long term as the immediate humanitarian relief is in the short term.

Edward Leigh: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter)—he asked some pertinent questions and I wish to do the same. We also heard a good speech by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), although I did not agree with a lot of what he said. Many of his arguments reminded me of Tony Blair coming here to justify the Iraq action. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that his speech was one of a liberal interventionist. I am not one and despite the fact that I may not make myself very popular in this debate, I still want to go on asking these questions.
	I felt unable to be among the 517 MPs who voted for the Libyan action. I spoke in that debate and asked a number of questions, although they are perhaps incapable of being answered. We were faced with an appalling humanitarian dilemma and I am not suggesting that there is an easy way out. As with Afghanistan and as with Iraq, my view of this action is very much based on the policy of containment and of relying on United Nations resolutions. I hope that before I sit down I will have convinced some people that we should stick to the UN resolution absolutely—no more, no less—and that there should be no question of regime change.
	We wrap ourselves in a cloak of high morals, but we should remember that arms sales to Libya—to the Gaddafi regime—since 2009 have totalled £61.3 million. That means that we have provided sniper rifles, bullets, tear gas and crowd control ammunition to the Gaddafi regime that we are now trying to topple. The Foreign Secretary was careful in his use of words yesterday about exporting telecommunications equipment to the rebels. The impression given was that it would be of a purely non-military nature, but there have been reports this morning that some of the telecommunications weapons could be of a highly sophisticated variety to call down air strikes on the Gaddafi forces, so my argument is that we are gradually being sucked into action that goes further than providing humanitarian support. Perhaps the Secretary of State for International Development can assure us that that is not the case.

Martin Horwood: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that it was a slip of the tongue when he referred to communications weapons. Does he appreciate that the rebels’ being able to communicate with the coalition forces might help to avoid some of the incidents we have already seen in which wrong identification has led to danger for civilians? It might enable populations to protect themselves under the terms of the resolution.

Edward Leigh: That was a good intervention. It might be that I have misunderstood and that the equipment will be used in an entirely peaceful way to avoid friendly-fire actions and that there is no question of any telecommunications equipment—not weaponry—being used to bring down fire on the enemy, but the point is made.
	Another thing that worries me very much is whether, because of the talk of regime change, we are being sucked into supporting people of very dubious credentials.
	Let us take the case of Musa Kusa, the former Libyan Foreign Minister, who is probably up to his elbows in blood, in terms of arming the IRA. We are told that no indemnity against prosecution will be given to him, but there have been reports this morning that we are lifting the freeze on some of his assets. How appalling it would be if that man—who at best is morally dubious and at worst may be a mass murderer through involvement with Lockerbie—is allowed to enter and leave this country with a lot of ill-gotten gains. I am reminded of one of the speeches given before the war, by Winston Churchill I think, about the danger that foreign policy can start in the Chancelleries of Europe with a broad, grand staircase and gradually, by twists and turns, descend into the torture chambers of the damned. I am very concerned that we should not get sucked into actions that are morally dubious because we are so intent on regime change that we will use any means to get it.
	In the first debate on Libya I asked some questions about our strategy such as what the endgame was, what we were trying to achieve and whether we could impose a solution simply from the air, which had never been done before. I think there was some lazy thinking at the time that the Gaddafi regime was so weak that the mere existence of a no-fly zone would ensure its collapse, but that clearly is not happening. It is obvious that there is a very strange war going on there at the moment. To read the popular press, one would think this was something like the Africa Corps against the Eighth Army, but it is not. It appears to be tiny, pocket-sized groups of irregular troops, and the Libyan coastline is 2,500 km long. There is an appalling weakness in the information that we get, but it is wishful thinking to assume that Gaddafi is simply going to go away.
	Something else that was not mentioned in the original debate was where the Italians were in all this. We know where they were originally: Italy agreed to pay £2.5 billion in so-called reparations for colonial rule and apologised for having colonised Libya. It agreed to help to build a pan-Libyan motorway, in return for which—this is the important point—Gaddafi would crack down on north African illegal immigrants to Italy, and it is true that they had almost completely dried up in the past two or three years, but not recently. Obviously, some deal was done between the Italians and Gaddafi that he would stop those immigrants. Italy has made the very serious point all along that if we engaged in the war there was a real danger that we would get a flood of immigrants, and that is now in danger of happening. We saw what happened with Berlusconi and the island of Lampedusa recently; it would be a tragedy indeed if by instituting this military action we created another flight of immigration.
	I should also like to know what on earth the United States is doing. It announced yesterday that it was pulling out all its aircraft, but it has 2,132 F-15s, F-16s and F-22s in service. If it has more than 2,000 aircraft, why is it taking its bat away? We have only 62 Typhoons and 136 Tornadoes. It is very difficult to get information out of the Ministry of Defence, but Sir Stephen Dalton, the head of the RAF, said yesterday:
	“It’s a heck of a lot to be doing at one time.”
	Questions are increasingly being asked about whether we should look again at the strategic defence and security review, as the hon. Member for Barnsley Central suggested in the part of his speech that I agreed with. At the same time as we are embarking on another war, we heard
	yesterday that 17,000 military personnel would be cut by the MOD—7,000 from the Army, 5,000 from the RAF and 5,000 from the Navy. I know that
	The Sun
	newspaper is held in contempt by some of the more thinking Members of the House, but it is unwise for politicians to ignore it. Its headline today is “Don’t you know there are 2 bloody wars on?” That is a retake of a headline it published on 28 August 2009 as an attack on Gordon Brown: “Don’t you know there’s a bloody war on?”
	Who are the rebels? We talk about them as though they were jolly members of Sevenoaks Conservative association—[ Interruption. ] There are increasingly reports of flickers of al-Qaeda. There is Colonel Khalifa Hifter, the former commander of the Libyan army in Chad who was captured and changed sides in 1988, setting up an anti-Gaddafi Libyan national army, reportedly with CIA and Saudi backing. For the last 20 years he has been living quietly in Virginia before returning to Benghazi to lead the fight against Gaddafi.
	Another odd person is Abdul Hakeen al-Hassadi, a Libyan who fought against the US in Afghanistan before being arrested in Pakistan, imprisoned, probably at Bagram in Afghanistan, and then mysteriously released. The US Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg, told Congressmen that he would speak of Mr Hassadi’s career only in a closed session. Let us be careful before assuming the we are not in danger of scoring a spectacular own goal. Those who talk about arming the rebels may well be talking about groups such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is undoubtedly there.
	I know that these are appallingly difficult issues and that there is no obvious solution, but I urge the House to bear in mind what this country’s geopolitical interests are. We have never been the colonial power there. We clearly have a humanitarian objective. We may now realise that there is a stalemate, and it might have been wiser to have tried to persuade the UN to try to enforce a ceasefire. Perhaps we did not talk enough about a ceasefire at the time because we were too focused on regime change. I think that we should focus on a ceasefire and accept that it is not for us to impose a solution on Libya. Appalling as the Gaddafi regime is—no one here makes any apology for it—it would seriously destabilise our relations with the Arab world if we were to seek to impose a solution. In my view, we stick to the UN resolution, in terms of a humanitarian ceasefire; we do not insist on any kind of regime change; and we hope that out of that will come some decent and proper future for the people of Libya.

Denis MacShane: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who has an independent voice and, as he reminded the House, an independent vote on these matters. Unlike him, I am profoundly in favour of regime change. Much of my political activist life has been committed to regime change, for example against the apartheid regime in South Africa, or in Poland, where I was put in prison by the communists because I wanted regime change there, obviously by peaceful means.
	Did we perhaps leave it too late to think of putting other pressures on Milosevic to get regime change there? Had we acted earlier or more decisively, might we have
	stopped not only the bloodbaths in Sarajevo, Srebrenica and Kosovo, but many hundreds of thousands of citizens—perhaps as many as 1 million—of the former Yugoslavia having to flee as refugees and asylum seekers? I still have many people in my constituency, as I expect do other Members, who came here from Kosovo because we failed to intervene. I would also like to see regime change in Zimbabwe and Burma. As we look at Ai Weiwei, a great Chinese artist banged up in prison, perhaps a change of approach in the regime in Beijing would not be wholly unwelcome.
	I pay tribute to the energy and leadership of the Secretary of State in providing humanitarian aid, but we took some time to get to where we needed to be. The House will record that, incessantly from the beginning of the year, I asked for debates on international affairs in either Government or Back-Bench time. The whole revolt started in mid-December in Tunisia, it spread to Egypt and to Libya and it is now taking off in Yemen, where hundreds of people are being killed and where the Gaddafi of Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, is saying, “I’m staying. We’ll open fire and my troops will be protected by British body armour as we do so.”
	We do not have a coherent and overall response, and we cannot forget the Prime Minister’s arms sales trip and his remarkable statement in Cairo in mid-February, when he said that
	“I am not a naïve neocon who thinks you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane at 40,000 feet.”
	Well, that is precisely what he then decided to do, as he agreed with the point of view, originally advanced by Lord David Owen, that a no-fly zone would be a good idea.
	I do not quite accept the view that all this is a miracle of British leadership. For good or ill, some of us can read papers in other countries, and in The New York Times and in the French and the German press many believe that President Sarkozy was probably the driving force behind much of the UN activity on Libya, inviting the Benghazi resistance committee to Paris, offering it recognition without any consultation with London—and much of it driven by internal French political reasons.
	That said, we have a remarkable UN resolution, and it throws into relief the fact that the coalition, for its first period in government, did not have an active foreign policy. It was broadly hostile to Europe, indifferent to President Obama’s United States and very much focused on mercantilism and trade, talking a lot about the BRICs, with the Prime Minister going to India and to China.
	But what do Brazil, Russia, India and China have in common? They all failed to support the resolution at the UN, so Britain has to ask itself serious questions about whether we have enough allies and friends throughout the world, and whether we punch too far below our weight, because we have turned our back on alliances in Europe, we are not really that interested in collaborative work with the United States any more, and we think that, if we can send a PM to India or China, that means Beijing and Delhi will fall in behind us as they vote in international forums throughout the world.
	We have to look at the structural approach to our foreign policy, and that is why I invite the House to consider this point. I address it directly to the Secretary of State for International Development, whom I
	congratulate on staying for the whole debate. It is the first time that I have seen a Secretary of State stay right through a debate, and it is a tribute to the fact that he takes the House seriously and his job very seriously. I invite the House to consider the idea that, rather than just going in with stretcher bearers, aid, blankets and great waves of British generosity and charity after a humanitarian crisis unfolds, we look for more preventive development work.
	I propose to the House an idea that I have raised with the Prime Minister in shorter statements and in questions. We should consider creating a UK foundation for democracy development, a properly endowed and resourced all-party foundation, which could help us to put into play some of the ideas that we have discussed in the House today, doing so before the event, however, rather than running—suddenly when a crisis breaks out—after the events on the ground, trying to get a UN resolution, to mobilise our rather limited armed forces and to find humanitarian aid.
	We have the excellent Westminster Foundation for Democracy, but its budget has been cut to a little over £3 million—about half a banker’s bonus at the going rate. We have development money available, and we are going to give more than £1 billion over the next four years to India alone. I am a friend of India, I hope, but it has more millionaires and billionaires than we have. It has its own aid and development programme, its own space programme and its own military programme. It gives us no help at all in international forums. In military terms, it has rather more aircraft carriers than we can manage—and so on.
	We have within our national budget money to find £50 million or £100 million to create a UK foundation for democracy development. It would have three principal goals, the first being to support economic and business development. The biggest complaint from people in Tunisia and Morocco was that the regimes presiding over those two countries were deeply corrupt in terms of demanding a slice of the economic action. I was told that nobody in Tunisia would employ more than 100 people because the moment their firm got big, the Ben Ali family would arrive and take their share. In Morocco, too, there are very serious complaints. It is not all happy development there, with huge demonstrations on the streets and demands that some of the advisers around the King, who are accused of helping themselves too easily to Moroccan economic wealth, move on. We need to promote good business and free-trade market economics. At the moment, too much Maghreb and southern Mediterranean trade flows north to Europe, and very little is intra-Arab, intra-Maghreb trade.
	The second goal of the foundation should be to develop political institutions, which the Prime Minister rightly calls the building blocks of democracy. Apart from the very limited money given to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, we have no facility in this country to advance this. All our political parties, none of which has any significant money to spend on international work, would then be resourced to try to develop democratic political institutions.
	Finally, there is civil society, including the media, women’s organisations, judicial organisations and trade unions. As the Secretary of State is here and has done me the courtesy of listening to my speech, I must protest that, of all the cuts it has imposed, DFID has
	taken money away from the International Labour Organisation, which was set up by Britain in 1919, was instrumental in defeating communism and apartheid in the 1980s, and is seen around the world as embodying British values. DFID’s removal of money from the ILO is regrettable.
	By bringing in work from other Departments and from hon. Members, we can create something that is in place for the next stages, so that when regime change does happen, as I hope it will in Libya, it comes not from the air—not because of military intervention—but because Britain is there ahead of the crisis trying to promote and develop democracy, open-market economics and the building blocks of a free society with the rule of law and free media and trade unions. Let this Government’s legacy be a foundation for democracy and development to make the world of the 21st century a better one.

Stephen Gilbert: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and particularly to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). Having watched the events across north Africa and the middle east unfold, I share his analysis that we are not even at the beginning point of understanding their historical significance.
	Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), I remain firmly of the view that the international community took the right decision to intervene in Libya to prevent a humanitarian disaster. That intervention was both legal and necessary, and to date it has been robust but proportionate. In fact, the whole emphasis of the international community’s determination to take action has been based on humanitarian grounds: first, the overwhelming need to protect the people in Benghazi from slaughter at the hands of the regime; and now the need to ensure that the people who have been displaced and are suffering as a consequence of the action that the international community has taken are protected.
	It is clear that Libya faces a humanitarian crisis, particularly on its borders. It has been estimated that about 380,000 people have left the country since the unrest began and that about 13,000 people are stranded on the borders with Tunisia and Egypt. We know that the UN is still negotiating for access to send its teams to the affected parts of the west of the country and, of course, without that access it is hard to say what might be occurring in that part of Libya.
	As the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said earlier, let us be very clear that the failure of the Gaddafi regime to allow the UN to enter the west of Libya is a breach of UN resolution 1973. For anybody who has any doubt about the nature of the regime that we are dealing with, we now have an individual leader who is refusing the UN the right to access his people and to provide them with humanitarian assistance. That is quite wrong and we must use every avenue possible to stop it, to get access to those people and to provide humanitarian assistance across Libya.
	In that context, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is quite clear that he and his colleagues in the Cabinet have taken determined action to take the humanitarian consequences of the military
	intervention very seriously. Indeed, DFID has already spent about £8 million helping people to leave Libya and to be resettled. As is customary for us as a nation, the UK was among the first to respond to the crisis on the border, providing shelter for up to 10,000 of the people stranded there. I am sure that Members from all parties will support the fact that the UK was among the first to intervene while encouraging many other countries to follow the lead we have taken, particularly those countries in Europe that are not playing as much of a supporting role in tackling some of the humanitarian issues as they could be and as it would be right for them to do.
	I welcome the fact that we were the first country to provide blankets, tents and food supplies to about 100,000 of the people who are most in need. The Government have also provided funding for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, enabling it to provide three medical teams to treat and provide medical support and supplies directly to the 3,000 people affected by fighting in Libya.

Denis MacShane: The Italian Government are proposing to settle thousands of Libyan and Tunisian refugees from Lampedusa in mainland Italy. How many of those asylum seekers does the hon. Gentleman think Britain has taken or should take?

Stephen Gilbert: I am grateful for that intervention, which highlights a key point. We must ensure that we are building conditions in Libya that mean that people feel free to stay in the country and do not feel the need to leave or to be settled. Of course, when we are talking about the resettlement of people it is quite right that the UK should play its fair part and take its fair share of that burden in the future.
	The London conference last week brought together 40 Foreign Ministers and international organisations, including the UN Secretary-General, Secretary of State Clinton and the Prime Minister of Qatar. It began to consider some of the issues that have been talked about today by the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). It asked what the endgame is and what processes we can put in place to ensure that the Libyan people choose their own destinies. The London conference established a political process to support the people of Libya in making that determination and it is quite right that the United Kingdom should play a lead part and continue to give the Libyan people the support they need to make self-determination as much of a reality for them as it is for us.
	The London conference, in a coming together of timings, also tackled one of the key recommendations from the Ashdown report, which made it quite clear that the international community needs to lead in humanitarian intervention and relief. I welcome the establishment of the Libya contact group to take forward the work of building up and supporting the Libyan people as they make the transition to self-determination. It is quite clear that the group will provide an important forum for co-ordinating international policy and a focal point for the Libyan people to engage with the international community. That is exactly the sort of proactive leadership
	that the Ashdown report recommends, and it is very welcome. It is absolutely right for the UK to be prominent in supporting that process. Of course, it is the UN that has the critical role of ensuring that humanitarian aid gets through to those who need it. Like hon. Members from all parts of the House, I pay tribute to the work of the hundreds of thousands of people from the UN across the world who are often in harm’s way, and in particular to the families and friends of the seven UN workers who were tragically murdered recently.
	Let us be clear: the Ashdown report stresses that when the international community considers a humanitarian response, there must be clear leadership and it must set out on a determined course of action. It is right for the UN to take a key role in providing that leadership, supported by international partners including the United Kingdom.
	I make a plea to the Secretary of State, to which I hope he will be sympathetic: our commitment to the Libyan people must be for the long term, and must not end when the guns fall silent. We must stay there for as long as it takes to deliver to the Libyan people the benefits of pluralism and the ability to reach for self-determination. I think that that is the will of the House and of the international community. It is right that we are there for Libya for the long term to give it political debate and economic growth. That will create the jobs and the standard of living that mean that the people will no longer flee from their homeland, but will be able to enjoy their country in the way that we enjoy ours.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind Members that Front-Bench speeches will begin at 4.50. There are four speakers to come, so they will each have about seven and a half or eight minutes if the time is divided up fairly.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to follow my coalition colleague, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who spoke with authority about the importance of Lord Ashdown’s report, and the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who spoke with enthusiasm and authority about his own opinions. I say that because I am not sure that his Front-Bench colleagues would be so enthusiastic to see as many regime changes as he spoke about.
	This is an important debate. The world is watching, including countries that are giving various degrees of conditional support and other nervous dictators. We must get this right, because interventionism—if such a word exists—has got a bad name recently because of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. As more and more warning lights start flashing red on the Foreign Secretary’s big wall map of the world, we must use our ability to persuade, influence or intervene wisely, ensuring of course that it is legal to do so and that there is regional support.
	I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development and the Prime Minister on their leadership and on their determination to make the right decisions on Libya. We started by ensuring that our citizens were
	evacuated, we were the first to call for Gaddafi to go, we were the first to request a no-fly zone, we were integral in ensuring that there was a UN resolution, and of course we hosted the recent London conference, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay spoke about at length. These are incredible events and I think that there are many more to come.
	Some have compared this Arab spring, as it has been called, to the fall of communism. There are similarities in the way in which the world is changing and the dynamics across the globe are starting to shift. The big difference between the fall of communism and the fall of the dictatorships that we are now seeing is the lack of depth in the structures beneath the dictatorships, which are built on fear. Underneath the communist structure was a party political system and the requisite expertise at every level, from the small village council to the big city. That is absent in these dictatorships, because they are based on fear and decisions are made only at the very top. Remove the dictatorship—remove the dictator—and one is left with a precarious situation.
	The Department for International Development and other agencies focus on three main themes: aid and relief, which include the emergency response; development and reconstruction, which involves help with economic programmes; and governance. Other colleagues have mentioned the first two, but I wish to focus on the third, because governance is critical to ensuring that we can sow the seeds of democracy at this early stage.
	We must learn from our mistakes, as I have said in a couple of interventions. The current situation is not just about a military campaign, it is also about post-conflict planning, and that can start immediately. It should be stressed that we cannot export western-style governance and impose it on countries. That would be absolutely wrong, as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. We cannot wander into countries, whether it is right or wrong, and expect the governance vacuum to be filled when there is nobody there to fill it. We saw what happened in Iraq. Even though people were delighted to see the back of Saddam Hussein, particularly in places such as Basra, there was no governance and no leadership, so we as liberators were eventually seen as occupiers. Al-Qaeda was able to take advantage of that and cause even more problems, which kept us in the country far longer than we should have been.

Jo Swinson: I am listening to my hon. Friend’s argument with great interest, and he is absolutely right. As well as learning from our failures, we should learn from our successes. Organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, on whose board I previously served, have done great things not in imposing democracy but in helping fledgling political parties to develop, organise and share best practice. Some activity of that type has already been going on in north Africa and the middle east, thanks to organisations such as the WFD and similar organisations from other countries.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Organisations such as the WFD, and larger ones such as DFID, have been ignored in the past. Their skill sets have been deliberately put to one side because, as I have said, a previous Secretary of State did not want to participate.
	As Paddy Ashdown’s report mentions, there is a learning curve, and the international humanitarian community must work together to ensure that an international community agenda is followed, not the agenda of individual countries. That was what went wrong in Afghanistan and has kept us there so long. There has not been a single agenda for everybody to follow.
	I stress that the window of opportunity is small. If we are not there right at the start, not to tell people what to do but to provide ideas that will assist in sowing the seeds of a developing democracy, a vacuum will be created. It will be filled, because that is only human nature. For the sake of survival, gangs form, and they become militias, which eventually start fighting each other. We must ensure that we do not repeat that mistake.
	Libya, of course, presents its own challenges, but also opportunities. It is effectively a 3 mile-wide country, but a very long one, which in some ways makes resupplying and so on a lot easier. In historical terms it is a very new country, having come together only when the Italians were in charge—I shall not say under their leadership. The sense of nationhood is therefore fragile.
	Historically, Benghazi has always looked east. It is part of the Cyrenaica region, one of the country’s three regions. Libya is a relatively wealthy country, with the largest oil reserves in Africa, but wealth is not evenly distributed. It is given to the few people who are close to Gaddafi. It is not surprising, therefore, that the so-called Arab spring started in the relatively independent city of Benghazi, which has not looked towards Tripoli for leadership. That provides an opportunity that we can start taking advantage of now. We do not need to wait for the entire country to be liberated to start sowing the seeds of governance.
	Let us consider Benghazi as it is now. On the positive side, the no-fly zone has prevented the genocide that we feared. We are seeing relative peace break out there. The national transitional council has been established, created by the educated and the great and the good—lawyers, dentists, architects and so on—who have come together and effectively represent every corner of Libya. Even exiles have been welcomed back; they have not been treated as deserters as in some of the other nations that are seeking to get rid of their dictators. Professionals are taking on those roles.
	Reports are sparse, but, on the negative side, there seems to be no police presence, and law and order is a question mark. Daniel Korski’s report, which I recommend to colleagues, summarises the position. It states that there is no law and order in Benghazi and that many youths are going around armed with AK47s, creating a sense of lawlessness. They are all jubilant and elated because they are now liberated from Gaddafi, but there is no sense of law and order. Heavily armed men are regularly firing thousands of rounds of live ammunition in celebration, but also in frustration and in mourning. Nobody is in full control of the city. In the fog of war and under the blanket of chaos, there are tribal clashes within the city walls. Old scores are being settled. Crime, including kidnapping and disappearances, is being committed.
	Even more worryingly, supplies are running short. Shops are closed, cash is running out and infrastructure is coming to a standstill. Of course, 90% of that city’s
	population were employed by the state and those pay cheques have dried up. Across the country, 1.5 million workers were foreigners who have departed. Help is therefore required in getting governance and structures moving again.
	The role of the young people is also concerning. Yes, they are taking part on the front line, but a distance is growing between their actions and thoughts, and those of the lawyers and the elderly, who are making the decisions in the national transition council. There is a disconnect between the two. The direction of travel is worryingly insular. People are not used to working with a larger network of organisations or as a co-ordinating body. Consequently, unless some outside help is gained, there will be a disconnect between the elderly and the young and their aspirations. They are not following the same agenda.
	We need to be careful about the outcome and tolerant of the fact that there may be a stalemate for several years. We must be able to assist with sorting out the mess, and that will take many years. Complex laws need to be overturned. There is an absence of transparency in the structures of governance and in employment practices, as well as a lack of infrastructure and trade. A new generation needs to be trained to take on the work that the foreigners have left behind them.
	The international community is not out of the woods. It is a critical time, and public opinion will swing against us if the seeds of democracy are not sown soon. The effort is international and I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s work. I urge him to continue to encourage other international operators to work with us. We must be prepared to tolerate a stalemate for the time being. I believe that we must also learn lessons from the past and ensure that all the work of international agencies and the national non-governmental organisations can be co-ordinated.
	The Arab spring is spreading far beyond the Arab world, from Yemen to Saudi Arabia and the Ivory Coast. Even Gabon is unsettled. I think that 2011 will be the year of turmoil, that worse is to come, and that we need to be prepared for it.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are now in more difficulty. That speech took nearly 12 minutes and we are down to seven minutes for the last three speakers.

Martin Horwood: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the seven UN personnel who died in Mazar-e-Sharif. We are all citizens of the United Nations, and they died in our service, too. I also pay tribute to the British armed forces who are taking part in the action in Libya and to the intelligence services, including those in my constituency. I suspect that they are also playing a part, although, as ever, they cannot tell me.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) raised the moral imperative behind the action in Libya.
	I worked for Oxfam at the time of the Rwanda genocide and I remember people’s rage and incomprehension at the way in which the international community stood by as nearly 20% of the Rwandan population were massacred. That led directly to the development of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, and I believe that the moral imperative is equally clear in Libya. As my right hon. Friend said, we had a moral duty to intervene.
	I commend the Secretary of State on the Government’s joined-up approach. There is clear evidence of co-ordination between not only the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, but with the Department for International Development. The discrete but important work of the stabilisation unit deserves particular credit. I was also pleased that the Secretary of State said that we were learning some of the lessons of Iraq, particularly the need for a single, UN-led operation geared to humanitarian relief, and the determination to preserve state capacity in Libya. Both those elements were missing from the Iraq operation, with disastrous consequences.
	I commend the Secretary of State on our generous contribution to the UN flash appeal, which I believe he did not mention. There are two major donors—the US and the EU—and Australia has given slightly more, but the UK is the next highest ranked, along with Canada and the Scandinavian countries. Germany, Italy and France have made substantial contributions on top of their EU contributions, Turkey is on the list, and Japan is quite highly ranked, which is commendable given the other demands on its resources at the moment. However, what about the countries obviously missing from that list? The Russian Federation, which is still a former superpower, has committed barely $500,000, which is slightly more than Malta committed, and the second biggest economy in the world, China, does not appear to be on the list at all, nor does the largest economy in the region, Saudi Arabia. I would not mind if the Secretary of State told me now or in writing later whether we are taking the matter of contributions to that fund up with those Governments.
	I repeat my warning that we should try to minimise the permanence of the refugee camps that are developing—tens of thousands of people are in such camps in Liberia and in the countries surrounding Libya—because all experience shows that they become dangerous. Not only can disease spread easily, but they become violent. It is impossible for children and adults, and particularly women, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) pointed out, to lead a normal life there. In time, they can become politicised, which I would have thought is a particular risk in this case. We should do everything we can to facilitate the safe return of Libyans to their homes, and the safe return of those who are not Libyan citizens to their home countries. I would be interested to hear what the Department has managed to achieve so far in repatriating people to third countries. We must also encourage safe conditions within Libya. I hope we are working with the interim national council in the areas that it controls, and which we can now regard as relatively safe, to facilitate the return of displaced people and refugees.
	Several hon. Members mentioned vulnerable groups, including women and children. I was pleased that the Secretary of State mentioned close collaboration with UNICEF on that front. However, I want to highlight one other group: elderly people. I also used to work for
	Help the Aged—now called Age UK—which has enormous experience in emergency situations in ensuring that the relief provided reaches elderly people, who are sometimes too frail and weak to leave the tents and join the queues for food and resources. They can easily be forgotten and left out.
	One last point specific to Iraq is on the need to protect infrastructure. The Secretary of State briefly mentioned that—I think—but there is an important dimension to the responsibility to protect civilian life, which I hope extends to the protection of water and energy supplies and other vital infrastructure.
	More broadly, I am very proud to be a member of a party that supports a Government who are aiming finally to fulfil the pledge to commit 0.7% of gross national income to development aid by 2013. Some of us have been campaigning for that for nearly 30 years, which shows our age. It is certainly a matter of pride that we will finally achieve that.
	Various hon. Members referred to the Ashdown report, which emphasises the importance of resilience, preparation and leadership in emergency situations, but there are also lessons to be learned on longer-term development. I commend to the Secretary of State the Liberal Democrat policy paper, “Accountability to the poor”, which was published last year. The paper is relevant to the situations in both Libya and Ivory Coast, including on the importance of the rule of law, transparency and good governance in ensuring that aid is delivered properly, and on the importance of Britain setting a good example through its companies and anti-bribery work. Perhaps we will ratify the UN convention against bribery.
	The paper also highlights the importance of arms control. I cannot imagine what we were doing granting licences for ammunition, crowd-control equipment and tear gas to the Gaddafi regime in the first place, but I am pleased that this Government have begun to revoke some of those licences, among many other arms licences across the middle east for some dubious regimes. I am also pleased that they are fundamentally reviewing our arms sales licence regime, and I hope that that too will be a drastic review.
	Environmental issues are also important, as is development education in building the support of the population for development aid, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out.
	In the limited sense of providing immediate protection under resolution 1973, it is clear that we are already enjoying considerable success in Libya. An enforced ceasefire would represent further success. We could then move on to the next stage, which must be to form some judgment as to whether Colonel Gaddafi is still the legitimate Government of Libya, and on whether the interim national council could have more legitimacy in time.

Damian Hinds: It is a privilege to follow the contribution from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). It was one of several thoughtful and impactful speeches in this debate. Among the others were those of my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis).
	All three interrelated strands of efforts in Libya are concerned with humanitarian ends—the military operation, relief aid and preparation for the future. On the military operation, UN Security Council resolution 1973 specifically authorises the measures necessary to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack, while excluding a foreign occupation force. Clearly, embarking on any military campaign is the heaviest responsibility of a Government and should be undertaken only after all possible alternatives have been explored within the time available. In this context, of course, that time period was dictated by the immediate, real and chilling threat of the Gaddafi regime to go from house to house, room to room, showing no mercy and no pity.
	So far the no-fly zone has been largely successful, and there are many people alive today in Benghazi who would not otherwise be so. I sincerely hope that these events mark a maturing of international law and institutions. As explained in detail by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), it is the first time that the responsibility to protect has been properly carried out, and in many ways it might mark—I hope it does—a key milestone along the long road first embarked upon by Woodrow Wilson in 1919 for the role that international law and international institutions can play in a peaceful world.
	There are two points of impact. Obviously, the first is about Libya itself, but the second is about everywhere else and the deterrents that could be given to despots everywhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) used the term “nervous dictators”. I am delighted that they are nervous, and I hope that more of them become more nervous. Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was affected by my experience on one of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s volunteering projects in Rwanda. Of course the situation in Rwanda was very different from that in Libya, but there are some links, and it is important to learn from them. I was particularly affected by one conversation I had with a genocide survivor at the Murambi camp, which my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds mentioned. I was told, “Back in 1994, while you were all arguing about the finer points of national sovereignty, international law, regional politics, balance and all the rest of it, but basically doing nothing, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of our friends and neighbours were dying. Please never let this happen again.” As the right hon. Member for Gordon said, that was the genesis of the responsibility or duty to protect. It also had a big impact on Bill Clinton, the then US President, and then, through his counsel, on President Obama.
	The second area concerns direct aid relief. I am proud once again of the leadership that this country has shown in providing aid. Inevitably, in these situations, there will be damaged infrastructure, food supply lines down, families and communities broken apart and tens of thousands of displaced people—with the hunger, injuries and sickness that come with it. Libya is, of course, an oil-rich country, so I welcome Qatar’s offer to consider facilitating the sale of Libyan oil in order to fund some of the immediate aid and improvements needed.
	We also have to look further into the future. We know that the surest way to ensure a safe future for the people of pretty much any country is to have economic
	development within a liberal democratic framework and the rule of law. However, a key lesson from recent conflicts—if, indeed, it were needed—is that we cannot simply impose a western-style democracy in short order. It is therefore absolutely right that a key theme of the London conference was that Libya and the Libyans must choose their own future. Multinational bodies, and especially the nearby regional bodies, have a key part to play. They include the UN, the EU, the African Union, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The Libya contact group, which was initially convened by Qatar, is obviously very much to be welcomed.
	We do not know what the circumstances in Libya will be in a few months’ time, or in one or two years’ time, but we do know the key building blocks for a more successful and safer future: infrastructure; social, medical and educational services; security; property rights; the rule of law and a functioning justice system; and, ultimately, civic society, the media and political parties. This country has much experience in those areas and much to share. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the stabilisation unit. On that point, I join the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in asking the Secretary of State to clarify how he sees that body evolving and to say which institutions will be key to that process in the medium term. Britain has a long history and a lot of responsibility in this area, and I am sure that it will continue to play its full part.

Alec Shelbrooke: Today’s debate has inevitably focused on the military action in Libya. I want to focus on humanitarian relief, which is important, but there are also a couple of points that I want to make about the military action.
	We have often been asked, “Why are we doing it?”, and so on. Britain has a strong history in helping the oppressed, including the Jewish refugees who came to Britain from Germany and elsewhere in Europe in the 1930s—not to mention the security that we need for our own borders. I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I am sure that, had it been in his speech, he would have said that when he was taking part in military patrols in other countries, he felt that he was doing humanitarian aid work, rather than serving as a soldier in an aggressive force. I am sure that many in the armed forces would feel that way too.
	We did indeed learn the lessons of Srebrenica. When I was a young man watching what was going on in the Balkans, I completely lost faith in the UN. I wondered what the point of it was, if it was going to stand by and let innocent people be murdered. We learnt those lessons; we have approached the current situation properly. We went to the UN and we have a mandate. However, having secured that mandate and protected countless lives in Benghazi, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has just said, we have to move forward. I believe that we have strengthened this Parliament by taking the action that we have and by saying to the British public, “We’ve done this wholly legally—we’ve gone to the UN and we’re backing it up.” However, we will lose that faith in this Parliament if we
	let a humanitarian crisis develop. I therefore praise the Secretary of State for his work in helping the humanitarian effort.
	There has been a lot of comment about the previous Government’s work with Gaddafi and whether that was right. Again, we can learn from history. Perhaps the previous Government were looking at what happened in Northern Ireland with the Good Friday agreement and how, when we spoke directly to the terrorist organisations, we were able to bring about a peace that is now so strong that all sides in Northern Ireland jointly condemned the murder of the police officer this week. However, the difference was that we were not dealing with a lunatic. In the 1930s we tried to deal with Hitler with appeasement, but we were dealing with a lunatic, and Gaddafi is also a lunatic—a man who has murdered our citizens in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and who would quite happily murder his own civilians for his own need.
	We have brought about that faith in this Parliament and we have realised that, as history has shown us, we cannot go down the road of appeasement. However, just because the leadership may not be civilised, that does not mean that the people of Libya are not civilised. Overall, it is a civilised society, with highly developed cities. It is our duty to protect the innocent people from what is happening there. There are families on the borders, with young women, children and elderly people in the cold and not knowing where to go. Some are ill; some are sick; some are wounded. It is our responsibility to ensure that we can work to supply aid on and around the borders of those countries.
	We have rightly focused on Libya, but I congratulate the Secretary of State on his earlier comments about the aid that we are putting into the areas around Côte d’Ivoire as refugees pour across the borders. We have the means and the ability to help people in those areas, and we can rightly stand up and be proud of that. It is all very well trying to intervene in world crises, although we are right to do so, especially when asked to do it in a totally legal way, but we must take that further step. It is not good enough simply to drop the bombs. Tragically, sometimes, people who are not involved in the conflict are killed, but in dictatorships such as Libya, the regime will draw into itself, and to hell with the people it is supposed to represent. That is when a responsible country such as ours has to step in.
	I am very proud that we will be giving 0.7% of our gross domestic product in international aid by 2013. That is something that we can all be proud of, and that unites Members on both sides of the House. When people say to us on the street, “Why should things be cut when we are giving money to foreign people?”, we can tell them that it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do in the world, and for our country. It also benefits our country. If we can create the proper security and meet the humanitarian needs of the refugees pouring out of those countries, or keep them within their area, it will be easier to repatriate them when times become more stable. We will not then see masses of immigrants flooding into our country. We would rightly offer them asylum here, as we have done in the past, but if we can solve the problem in their own country, that is the right thing to do. That is the message that we must send out from this place. This is not only the right thing to do; it also has a direct impact on the people of this country.
	I commend the Secretary of State and his Department for their efforts. He has shown Britain to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed people of the world. We are following the right path in taking legal military action, but let us not underestimate the importance of ensuring that the humanitarian relief that we put in place in all those zones is seen to be effective by the people it is helping, and that it is actually helping the people in those countries.

Rushanara Ali: I should like to thank the Secretary of State for arranging this debate. I also pay tribute to the staff at the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the humanitarian agencies for their work in this incredibly testing period. We also owe our gratitude to our brave servicemen and women who are engaged in protecting civilians in Libya under UN resolution 1973, and let us again pay our respects to the seven UN staff who were killed in Afghanistan at the weekend. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for updating us on the situation in Ivory Coast, as well as for his extensive update on Libya. We welcome the humanitarian and emergency response review, chaired by Lord Ashdown, which builds on the work of the last Labour Government, and the positive international reputation of the Department for International Development.
	The contribution to the debate today from Members with so much expertise has highlighted the deep concern and commitment felt towards those who are suffering around the world, whether due to natural disasters, repression, human rights violations or conflict in countries such as Libya and Ivory Coast. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) spoke of the generosity of the people in neighbouring Tunisia, the importance of the Arab League’s involvement and the co-ordination between the international aid agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) spoke with immense expertise about the need for a political solution and the dangers of arming the insurgents in Libya. Other hon. Members shared that concern.
	The right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) spoke of the background to the duty to protect, and the struggle by many hon. Members to establish that duty, which underpins the present action. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) spoke powerfully from experience, and talked about Britain’s history of intervening in the pursuit of justice and standing up for those who suffer in conflicts such as the one in Libya. He also spoke of the need to look again at the strategic defence and security review.
	The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) spoke powerfully about the protection of women and children, and the need for protection from sexual violence. Other hon. Members spoke about the need to support civil society organisations. I do not have time to sum up the wonderful and expert contributions of many other Members, but I want to say that it has been heartening to listen to them in the House today. The conviction and passion expressed by Members of all parties and the general support, albeit with some exceptions, for the intervention in Libya have been notable.
	The events of recent months have tested the world’s resilience and ability to respond to humanitarian crises. Natural disasters and political uprisings have become increasingly frequent. Even though New Zealand and Japan are advanced countries, the situation in those two countries makes it clear that the international community is being increasingly tested. If those countries find it challenging to cope with such disasters, countries such as Haiti and Pakistan, which faced floods and earthquakes last year, are clearly going to require ever-increasing support.
	As Lord Ashdown’s review highlighted, we need to be better prepared, better equipped, better co-ordinated, better focused and better organised and resourced in tackling these conflicts and challenges, which are likely to become more frequent. That is why we welcome the humanitarian review and look forward to the debate on the subject after the recess.
	I have a few brief questions about Libya, some of which have been raised by hon. Members. Time is limited, so I shall highlight three points. First, the regional inter-agency flash appeal for the Libyan crisis was revised on 1 April, with $310 million requested for the period from March to June. As mentioned earlier, only 36% of that sum is funded, yet it is estimated that 1.5 million people are now affected. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to secure further financial support, not only from our own Government but from the international community?
	Secondly, we must ensure that all sides of the conflict are allowed unfettered humanitarian access to the civilian population. Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that aid can reach Libya by sea and that, if necessary, civilian casualties can be evacuated?
	Thirdly, it is clear that a lasting political solution is vital, as many Members have highlighted, and that given the neglect over the last four decades, civil society needs to be strengthened and built up. Economic reconstruction is also required. Will the Secretary of State press the international community to ensure that those issues are made priorities?
	In my last couple of minutes, I would like to raise a couple of key questions about Ivory Coast. The situation is clearly critical and, as we heard in reports last night, is changing by the hour. Baroness Amos spoke about mass graves being discovered, although that needs to be verified. We call on the British Government to pay even closer attention to the emergency in Ivory Coast. Given the challenges that that country faces, equal effort and attention should be paid to that. We must recognise that conflict in Ivory Coast risks destabilising west Africa, and that countries such as Liberia need our assistance to cope with the movement of refugees. I call on the Secretary of State to encourage our European counterparts to ensure that Ivory Coast and neighbouring countries receive the support that they require, and that the British Government step up their efforts to secure a political settlement in that country.

Andrew Mitchell: This has been a highly informed and extremely interesting debate. I am grateful for the warm support expressed throughout the House for the work of my officials, which I shall certainly pass on to them. I shall try to respond to a number of the points that have been made, and I shall of course write to Members to whose points I fail to respond.
	As I listened to the opening remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), I struggled to identify any points of difference between us and failed to do so. I am grateful for her support. She referred particularly to the issue of Ivory Coast, with which I dealt in my own opening remarks. Obviously, this is a chapter VII rather than a chapter VI United Nations assignment. In a recent United Nations resolution we called for more effective use of that mandate, which I think we have seen in recent days. I can also tell the House that during the debate the position has changed in Ivory Coast. We believe that Gbagbo and his forces are currently negotiating surrender, but time will show whether that is indeed the case.
	I can give the right hon. and learned Lady the assurance for which she asked: we will indeed focus very directly on the crisis in Ivory Coast which has spilt over the border into Liberia. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for International Development is there today. In terms of British taxpayer support, we have delivered more humanitarian relief to Liberia and Ivory Coast than the total spent so far in Libya. The right hon. and learned Lady was right to say that that emergency should not be forgotten, and it will not be. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) pointed out, it is essential that we do not forget the allegations and atrocities, and I can give her the assurance she seeks that the British Government will strongly support their full investigation.
	The right hon. and learned Lady referred to the responsibility to protect, as did others, notably the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). Important work was led by Gareth Evans, who was a Labor Foreign Secretary in the Australian Government. The whole world should be grateful to him for what he did, but it remains, in my view, a bumper sticker rather than a policy. It is up to us to try to ensure that we put far more flesh on the bones of R2P.
	The right hon. and learned Lady asked me about the European Union’s contribution. In Libya, it has contributed €30 million so far. I have had discussions with Cathy Ashton, and we are sure that the EU will be part of the support for stabilisation, about which I shall say more in a moment. The right hon. and learned Lady also asked me who was in charge. In terms of the humanitarian work, Valerie Amos leads for the United Nations, and it is incumbent on us all to work extremely closely with her.
	As for the work on stabilisation, which is of course different from the work on humanitarian relief, the United Nations—in the form of the Secretary-General—has agreed to lead that work. He has put Lynn Pascoe in charge of it, under him, and we will work extremely closely with all the agencies involved in the United Nations. I will shortly be going to New York to ensure that Britain plays a full role in that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who knows a great deal about this matter, spoke up forcefully for British international development policy. Like many other Members on both sides of the House, he emphasised the importance of humanitarian intervention. He asked whether there had
	been a change in the policy on regime change. My answer is no, there has not, but we do believe that Gaddafi has no legitimacy and should go.
	In a typically sensible speech, the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley)—who I think can be described more accurately as the York citizen in Parliament—referred to the importance of resilience. He asked about the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, but we have focused on the question of which agency delivers to best effect in terms of both value for money and results, and other agencies we will be using do the same work as the UNISDR. I should make it clear to him that we seek to deliver on specific outcomes, which is why we have contributed to the UN central emergency response fund, and indeed to UNICEF, so strongly.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon gave a typically thoughtful and wise speech, in which he sought to nail the canard that we have intervened because of some interest in oil. Of course he is right to say, as the Prime Minister has said, that we have no national or selfish strategic interest. Instead, we are intervening in support of UN resolution 1973. He and many other Members talked eloquently about Lord Ashdown’s report, and I will report to the House in the middle of May on the Government’s conclusions on that, after having studied and reflected on—and, indeed, consulted further on—Lord Ashdown’s report. I note, too, that my right hon. Friend’s Committee will be producing work on the role of the European Union in development, which will be extremely welcome.
	The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) spoke up eloquently, ventilating the dilemmas we face. He talked of the balance we need to achieve. He also praised the reporting of Daniel Korski, a former head of the provincial reconstruction team in Iraq, and a distinguished past adviser on conflict to my Department. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government’s approach to stabilisation was properly joined up. The stabilisation unit has been involved from the beginning on these issues, and is, of course, a tri-departmental unit. It is producing extremely helpful work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) spoke about the importance of stabilisation. She also spoke about the critical importance of looking after, and defending, the interests of women and children. I should say to her that those in the camps on the border with Tunisia, and to a lesser extent with Egypt, are, thank goodness, predominantly fit, young men, so we have not seen what has happened in Ivory Coast on the Liberian border, where women and children are highly vulnerable. That is why we have given very specific support to UNICEF; we want to make sure the interests particularly of children are defended.
	The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) asked whether we are arming the rebels. We have not done so, and we have no plans to do so. All the action we take is in accordance with UN resolution 1973. He also asked about the situation on the borders. Some 400,000 people have left, and there are only some 10,000 to 12,000 people on the border now, so the work of seeking, through the international community, to get people back to their homes and families has been pretty effectively carried out. He asked about supplies to Misrata. Medical supplies have got through from the International Committee of the Red Cross in small boats through the Libyan Red Crescent. We are actively looking at ways of
	supplying food and medicine to Misrata, and I believe that a boat from the ICRC itself will be arriving there today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made an important speech, in which he raised the dilemmas and difficulties that we face. I should just say that he has clearly not addressed the Sevenoaks Conservative association, and he should take an early opportunity to do so. I hope to be able to discuss with him the important matters that he raised in his speech at another time.
	I have failed to comment on the very good speeches by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert)—
	Motion lapsed (Order, 29 March).

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day—Second Half]
	 — 
	Easter Adjournment

Peter Bone: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
	It may help if I tell the House that we are using a modified Hollobone formula today, whereby the first group of speakers will have a Department for Work and Pensions Minister replying to them, but for the rest of the debate the fount of all knowledge, the Deputy Leader of the House, will respond. If he cannot respond substantively, a Minister from the relevant Department will provide a written response to Members.

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind hon. Members that we have a time limit of six minutes.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Tony Lloyd: I suppose that I should be delighted to be the first part of this Hollobone experiment. I am delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) is in his place, although I shall not be discussing his immediate subject brief. I wish, instead, to talk about the very important subject of health and safety and the Government’s recently published document “Good Health and Safety, Good for Everyone”.
	In my working life, my political opponents have never tried to kill me but when I worked in some dirty industries as a younger man one or two of my employers did. Health and safety is not a bolt-on extra, and I can see that the Minister agrees with that sentiment. The document’s introduction states:
	“No business benefits from having a bad safety record.”
	We would all agree with that, but it is a bit worrying to see it go on to say:
	“But the burden of health and safety red tape has become too great”.
	I do not regard health and safety as being a burden on industry; it is a necessary part of a good and proper working culture, and it involves both the employer and employee in a contract. That contract is not of the normal financial nature; it is about preventing injury and illness, and, in some cases, preventing risk to life.
	In that context, I wish to put a number of points across, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them. Health and Safety Executive funding is being cut by some 35% over the comprehensive spending review period, and that is a significant decrease. The worry is that the new health and safety framework is rather more concerned with cutting down what the HSE does than with ensuring that health and safety working practices are in place.
	Some of the health and safety statistics are worth recalling. Although the number of accidents in Britain has declined in recent years—that is a very welcome
	trend—there is nothing inevitable about that decline, and health and safety has to be worked at all the time. It is worth while recording the fact that even companies that have been inspected by the HSE do not regard this as a burden of red tape; 89% of them found that exchange with the HSE helpful. So I applaud the work of those in the HSE. We should be very concerned about the idea of withdrawing from proactive inspections of places of work.
	Agriculture is one of the industries that the Government tell us will not be routinely inspected—or are not likely to be inspected very often—yet its health and safety risk is 16 times that of industry in general. Agriculture will be lightly inspected and I am not sure that that is the right way to make progress, given that health and safety inspections are not a penal structure. What I want to get across is the fact that proactive engagement is worth while, not because it penalises, but because it encourages. Some 65% of firms reckoned that they had improved their health and safety operations because of the potential for inspection by the HSE.
	Something else that I wish to concentrate on is the HSE’s inability and seeming reluctance to prosecute. If we are to have a lighter-touch approach to the inspection of working places, there must be at least a commensurate disincentive to those who breach the health and safety rules. We know, as a matter of practical fact, that the number of prosecutions has declined dramatically over the past 10 years. In 2000-01, there were about 1,900 prosecutions, but that number declined to a little over 1,000 in 2009-10. The number halved in that period.
	I had a recent experience in my constituency with the Grafton hotel in Manchester. Its operators had been told that it was not fit for use, but they were still allowing students to stay in it despite the health and safety risk. In the end, that was prevented by the actions of Manchester city council and the local fire service, and the students who had moved in were, at the expense of the operator, moved out and housed somewhere else. That was right and proper, but I found it difficult to understand why the Health and Safety Executive refused to prosecute in that case even though that company had manifestly put those students’ lives and well-being at risk. In my exchanges with the HSE, its chief executive wrote me a very evasive answer about why it had not prosecuted and an even more evasive answer when I asked about its policy on prosecution. If we are to have a lighter-touch approach, and I am not sure that is the right direction of travel, the worst offenders have to be brought before the courts. We would do that with someone who had been warned about road traffic offences. They would then be prosecuted and we must do the same when people’s lives and health have been put at risk.

Fiona Bruce: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of advice for professionals, managers and those in skilled senior roles who face redundancy and seek re-employment. A number of letters and surgery attendances from constituents in that position have highlighted common themes about how we support those who approach jobcentres for help, and they have led me to raise this issue. I recognise
	that jobcentre staff undertake an extremely challenging role in helping disappointed and sometimes embarrassed individuals to be restored to the dignity of working life and I do not criticise any individual in a jobcentre or any particular jobcentre. Indeed, I have visited my local jobcentre where the staff are hard-working and committed. Rather, I want to highlight some systemic issues.
	Common themes highlighted by my constituents include the need for training at an appropriate level, the need for a more tailored client approach and the need to signpost appropriate executive-level job opportunities or agencies. Constituents have also requested that opportunities within voluntary organisations should be identified and promoted to help them to broaden and update their skills and CVs. There is a need to point in the right direction those who want to use their experience to set up their own business and it is important to provide the managers of companies in which redundancies are planned with constructive support in assisting staff with finding new jobs at the earliest possible stage—ideally before redundancy hits.
	May I illustrate those issues through the experiences of some of my constituents? A senior project manager who had overseen a number of complex building projects such as a forensic lab, a theatre and a sports centre and who had managed many skilled staff asked for help and was sent on a training course to learn how to look for jobs online. It was so basic that he learned nothing and ended up helping the person running the training programme to teach others. He was sent on an interview training course, which was again so basic that he was told to shine his shoes and what to wear—wholly inappropriate for a man who had selected and recruited hundreds of staff himself. That was a waste of time and public resources, but for the training he really wanted, to update his senior construction skills certification scheme card, no help was available.
	Another constituent of mine, a lady who had worked for a leading bank for more than two decades, wrote:
	“Signing on was a completely humiliating experience. Professional people are just not catered for…I was less motivated coming out of”
	the jobcentre than on going in. She also said that the box-ticking procedures could have been done by computer terminals.
	When I raised these issues with Jobcentre Plus, I was told that in 2009 it had
	“introduced a new range of support for customers with a professional or executive background”,
	including job search techniques, signposting advice and coaching seminars. However, a constituent of mine who had been seeking work for several months told me that none of that had been offered to him in an appropriate manner.
	Another constituent wrote to me about his experience of trying to set up his own business, saying:
	“I have received absolutely no help whatsoever”.
	One might argue that it is not the role of jobcentres to advise on setting up a business, but at least better signposting to organisations that can provide such advice would be a good start, particularly if we are serious about encouraging enterprise.
	From a separate but very serious perspective, this week I received an e-mail from a manager at Ideal Standard, the bathroom manufacturer that is closing a
	factory in Middlewich in my constituency. More than 250 people will lose their jobs there by June. He highlighted how difficult Ideal Standard has found it to obtain the right support for its workers who are facing redundancy and want re-employment. Although in other parts of the country there might be individual support and funding for retraining, he says:
	“For those of us who live in the CW post codes, i.e. the Cheshire East area and your Congleton constituency there appears to be nothing; no support for retraining redundant employees. Employees are going through and coping with huge and major stress factors during this emotional change and site closure. To date, they have handled themselves extremely well, with professionalism, respect, pride and dignity, and I can only say how proud I am of them all. However this situation only aggravates and upsets people and contributes to pushing some beyond their limit. We have no control of this and cannot influence any outcomes. It is most unfair”.
	Will the Minister please look into this specific issue raised by Ideal Standard as a matter of urgency?
	Finally, another constituent has told me that in looking for work she was willing to work voluntarily to improve her CV and job chances, but she was told by the jobcentre that it was not its role to signpost her in that respect. She wrote to me and said that there is an
	“evident lack of suitable advice/provision for claimants from a professional background…There does seem to be a gross failure and it is affecting a great many people’s lives.”
	She wants to work. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Nick Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on welfare reform and how it will change the lives of my constituents. Like me, the residents of Blaenau Gwent believe that people should always work if they can. Work is good for people. It helps to give pride and a sense of purpose in life. It improves economic well-being and health.
	The world of work has been transformed in Blaenau Gwent. Our economy, which was once dependent on coal and steel, has been diversified into manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and the public sector, including health and local government. Many local people now take the train to work in Cardiff. Local people also know that sometimes they need to follow the work. For example, when the Ebbw Vale steel works closed, some employees, including members of my family, transferred to the Tata steel works at Trostre near Llanelli. Having said that, it is a tough ask for many people to up sticks, particularly if they are in their 50s, and especially when house prices are low, child care is in short supply and they have to support their working children and their grandchildren.
	In an area were people are still suffering from the illnesses inflicted by former heavy industries—it is the top hot spot for chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder in Wales—our valleys communities know that some people, through no fault of their own, are not fit to work. Crucially, they know from hard experience that people will work only if there is work to be had. The unemployment rate in Blaenau Gwent is 10.6%, and the working-age benefit claimant rate is a staggering 26.7%. There are 9.2 applicants for every Jobcentre Plus vacancy. That is a snapshot of my constituency. Those rates and percentages refer to real people and real families of all
	ages, and if changes affecting their lives are to be made, they should be changes for the better that are properly piloted and managed.
	I know that our current welfare system causes frustration and distress to some constituents, because benefits and tax credits form the second largest part of my constituency casework after housing. I am sure that I am not alone in anticipating that such casework will increase as this week’s welfare reforms are introduced. In recent months I have met jobcentre staff, local authority staff and my own local social housing provider, and my team has swapped notes with the citizens advice bureau. I wanted to find out who will be affected by the reforms that are coming in, whether the details of benefit changes are clearly and easily understood and how they will be made.
	So what is the picture on the ground in a constituency of 54,000 electors? There are 6,240 people in Blaenau Gwent claiming either employment and support allowance or incapacity benefit. Labour created the new test for people on incapacity benefit to see what support people needed and who should take steps to get back to work, but the Conservative-led Government are moving to a new assessment procedure, which I and agencies in Blaenau Gwent fear will deny people, perhaps with cancer or with mental health problems, the help and support that they need.
	Some 4,180 recipients of incapacity benefit in Blaenau Gwent will undergo a reassessment, and initial estimates suggest that 1,254 of them will be found fit for work and barred from claiming ESA. Those found fit for work will have to apply for jobseeker’s allowance and will see up to £28.85 lost in weekly benefits. In addition to those deemed fit for work, trials also show that a further 39% of incapacity benefit claimants will be placed in a work-related activity group. In effect, it means that a potential 69% of those IB claimants being reassessed will either lose their benefit entirely or see the demands placed on them increased.
	One of my concerns is that the test that decides who goes where has been found to have serious flaws, and preliminary trials show that people with multiple sclerosis and serious mental illnesses have been found fit for work. Staff at our CAB in Blaenau Gwent say that their office has had numerous complaints from clients about medical personnel not listening to them when they go for medicals. The test must measure fitness for work accurately, so it must take account of variable symptoms, the seriousness of underlying conditions and the context of the work environment.
	Despite all that, the Tory-led coalition is ploughing ahead with a massive increase in testing. Charities say that that roll-out is happening too fast and Government reforms to the system will not be implemented in time. Jobcentre Plus is to have more autonomy over decision making, and I welcome that. I hope that it will, and that jobcentre staff will help people to move into sustainable employment and to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled.
	On the changes to housing benefit, Blaenau Gwent has 1,298 local housing allowance claimants who will be affected by the change to LHA rates. From January, 799 people under 35 years old will be on the shared room rate, rather than on the rate for a full flat, and an analysis by the local council showed that an average person in that age group will see their housing benefit reduced by about £25.92 a week.
	Many reforms are taking place, but unfortunately I do not have time to cover them. I wish to highlight the scale of the changes from this month and in subsequent months and years not just for the individuals affected, but for our local economy. This is big-ticket stuff for our families and for our economy. In Blaenau Gwent and in south Wales we need an ambitious plan for growth and, in particular, investment in our transport and IT infrastructure to boost jobs. We need also fairness and good administration of the benefit changes that will be introduced this month.
	Finally, the Prime Minister has told us that the Government’s Work programme will be the best ever. My constituents need nothing less, and we will hold him to his word.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me this chance to talk about the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, or one element of it—the Child Support Agency.
	In the borough of Charnwood, the CSA currently handles 2,000 cases, and I am sure that many colleagues throughout the House know of similar work loads. Despite the best efforts of the staff my office has dealt with, it is clear that the CSA is not working and seems to embed conflict between separating parents. It costs £460 million per year, or 40p for every £1 collected, and on a day when the Government are talking about social mobility we must ensure that such organisations as the CSA do not play their part in hindering the life chances of those children who rely on it.
	In the Government’s Green Paper, I welcome the approach of considering child maintenance not in isolation, but with the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice as part of the family law review. Based on the cases that I am going to mention, with the permission of the people involved, however, I particularly feel that access to the children for whom maintenance is being negotiated cannot be sidelined.
	My main reason for speaking today is to give a voice to some of the parents who have contacted me about the CSA since my election last year. I realise that there are two sides to every case, but they highlight why change is needed to the way child maintenance is collected and calculated. I want to concentrate on three areas: enforcement, charges for those who have to rely on the state system and, in terms of the families involved, the need to look at the whole picture.
	Mrs Denise Kuzniar, one of my constituents, has been receiving child maintenance payments from her ex-husband through the CSA for the past 11 years. However, the payments are intermittent, sometimes stopping for several months at a time, and she is currently owed £2,300 in arrears. She is in increasing debt as a result of this situation. She has two teenage children to look after and is really struggling to make ends meet. I have had several conversations with the CSA about this issue, but no serious enforcement or action to remedy the situation has taken place. Any reforms to the statutory system evidently need to include much more stringent
	enforcement provisions so that parents do not have to go through the pain and uncertainty that Mrs Kuzniar has suffered.
	In addition, Mrs Kuzniar is already struggling to support her family, and it would be all but impossible for her to reach a private maintenance agreement with her ex-husband, given his continued attempts to avoid making payments through the CSA. Under the Government’s proposals, it appears that she would have to turn to the statutory system and potentially incur a charge on a case-by-case basis. This would be devastating for her in view of the number of times her case has had to be re-assessed by the CSA because of her ex-husband’s actions.
	I have been contacted by many other constituents who have faced similar difficulties and for whom the idea of making private arrangements with their ex-partner is unthinkable, so that they, too, would have to turn to the state system. One ex-partner has been requested to pay only £5 per child, but instead seems to do what he can in order not to have to pay the mother anything. There is a risk that under the Government’s proposals, vulnerable parents such as those I have mentioned will be forced to turn to the statutory system but could be put off doing so by the thought of having to pay to access the system. I realise that there are proposals to ensure that the non-paying partner pays the charges, but this must be made clear to all involved, as it is clearly causing a great amount of stress and worry.
	I want to highlight some of the issues currently faced by parents making payments through the CSA. I have been contacted by numerous constituents who say that even under the current system, these payments are unaffordable and do not share the burden of responsibility evenly between the partners involved. These parents literally live on the breadline, and although they do everything they can to support their children and would be willing to come to a private maintenance agreement with their ex-partner if possible, they have been unable to do so for a variety of reasons.
	I particularly want to talk about the cases of two fathers, because we often concentrate on the mothers involved. The Minister may be aware of the case of Mr Jonathon Little, about whom I spoke at Work and Pensions questions last week. Mr Little has not seen his children for two years, although he has been to court more than 40 times to get agreement to visit. He is paying £446 per month under the old scheme for children he does not see. Meanwhile, he cannot afford to keep a roof over the heads of his new family.
	Mr Mark Boylan has been left with only £49 in disposable income a month after paying the CSA and all other expenses. His assessed payment should be lower, as the CSA charge attracts a discount if someone looks after their children for more than 52 nights a year. However, his youngest daughter is two years old and too young to stay away from her mother overnight. As a result, although he looks after her during the day and pays all expenses for her, the CSA will not give him any discount for the care because she does not stay with him overnight.
	I have sought to highlight some of the major concerns raised by constituents about the proposed changes to the child maintenance and support system, but I have also mentioned the problems with the current system because they clearly demonstrate that reform is very much needed. There must be robust enforcement
	mechanisms which prevent parents from using various means to avoid paying what they owe, there must be clarity about charging, and the system must be flexible enough to reflect both parents’ incomes and who is taking the burden of financial responsibility for caring for the children.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the four hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I have been asked to keep my remarks relatively brief because many hon. Members want to contribute on a range of other topics, but I hope to offer a few comments in response to the speeches that we have heard.
	I thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) for his measured comments on the Health and Safety Executive. I, too, applaud its work, which the Government continue to value. He will be aware that in the context of the comprehensive spending review, all Government bodies, including the HSE, are being asked to make savings. The HSE is doing this very much by focusing on the highest-risk sectors and trying to take a risk-based approach. I entirely agree that health and safety is not a bolt-on and that good health and safety regulation and legislation is not simply red tape. On the other hand, there is a concept of proportionality in regulation. One could try to regulate and legislate to eliminate every possible conceivable risk, but at disproportionate cost relative to the damage that one would do to employment and businesses. As the hon. Gentleman says, there is a balance to be struck. We do not want employers taking chances with people’s lives; on the other hand, we do not want to get in the way of employers who basically want to get on with doing a good job and who are not taking risks with health and safety but find themselves constrained by unnecessary bureaucracy and regulations. That is what we are trying to achieve.
	The hon. Gentleman welcomed the decline in the number of accidents and said that there was no guarantee that would continue. He is of course right, although it is interesting that much of that decline has happened at a time when more money was not necessarily being spent and new regulations were not necessarily being brought in. That shows that we can achieve improved outcomes in health and safety without necessarily increasing budgets or passing new laws. Good proactive and reactive health and safety work and good conduct by employers and employees can achieve improving outcomes. The link between spending and outcomes is not linear. We can deliver good health and safety outcomes with a reduced budget, as recent history shows.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the decline in the number of prosecutions, although of course if there were fewer accidents that would, we hope, lead to fewer prosecutions. There has not simply been a step change in the willingness to prosecute. Under the Health and Safety Executive’s enforcement policy statement, prosecution is the expected outcome when the investigation of an incident has collected sufficient information about a breach of health and safety law to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and when it is in the public interest to prosecute. I cannot comment on the hotel example that he gave—I obviously do not know the details—although I am pleased that he took the case up
	with the HSE. I note that he was not satisfied with the response he received, and if he wanted to take that matter further, I am sure my fellow Minister of State at the Department—he is in Committee at the moment, debating the Welfare Reform Bill—would be pleased to hear from him.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, but want simply to stress the Government’s commitment to health and safety, to proportionate regulation and to ensuring that we go on maintaining high standards of health and safety in a cost-effective way. That is our goal. We have set up a review, to be chaired by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, to look for opportunities to consolidate, simplify and abolish regulations without, crucially, putting people at risk. Protecting people in the workplace and society as a whole remains a key priority for the Government. We have found that there have been too many inspections of relatively low-risk and well-performing workplaces, frequent poor advice to business from badly qualified consultants —we want to deal with that—and a complex structure of regulation. Changing that is the goal for which we have set out our strategy. I hope that that is helpful.
	Let me deal now with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). She made an important point about the position of people who are being made redundant and the particular problems faced by professionals. Her constituency has a relatively high proportion of professionals, including those who are, unfortunately, experiencing unemployment. She is right to say that unemployed professionals face particular challenges, although I would say that they have particular advantages, too. The evidence shows that almost by definition they tend to be more experienced and qualified, they tend to have their own networks to look for work and, on the whole, they tend to be more successful than non-professionals at finding work more rapidly. They also tend to make greater use of private sector recruitment agencies other than Jobcentre Plus. That helps to explain why 63% of those claiming jobseeker’s allowance in my hon. Friend’s constituency come off it within three months, compared with the national average of 56%. In part, that reflects the higher proportion of professionals in her constituency.
	My hon. Friend made some important points and I know that she has been in correspondence with the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus on this issue. We need to ensure that what we call the rapid response service is effective. She will be familiar with it: when we know that large-scale redundancies, such as those that she mentioned at Ideal Standard in her constituency, are coming down the track, we try, through the rapid response service, to get in there before people have lost their jobs rather than having them go through that. The aim of the service is to help people move quickly into new employment or self-employment, which she also mentioned, connecting people to jobs in the labour market, matching people facing redundancy to known job vacancies and helping people, where appropriate—I take her point about patronising schemes—with CVs and job-search skills.
	My hon. Friend’s point about sending people on box-ticking and patronising courses was important and I want to give her some reassurance that we should see an end to that kind of thing, certainly for those who are
	long-term unemployed and who go through the Work programme. Hitherto, people have been paid for these welfare-to-work schemes regardless of whether they were effective, but under the Work programme the remuneration for those who provide such services will be results based. If they pay to provide a useless scheme, it will come off their bottom line, not from the taxpayer, but if they send someone on the right course to help them retrain and acquire the right skills, they will be remunerated for helping somebody into a sustainable job. I think that the incentives structure in the new regime will be better.
	Finally, my hon. Friend asked about volunteering, which is an important route back into work. We are implementing what we call volunteering desks in Jobcentre Plus offices, to allow charities such as the Prince’s Trust to attract volunteers. In a big society way—I had to say that phrase at some point—we are keen for jobcentres to facilitate such opportunities. We value volunteering, and I hope that the kind of experience that her constituent had will not happen as much in the future as it has in the past.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) described very clearly the situation in his constituency, including the number of people who are dependent on incapacity benefit. I understand that in his constituency, 5,110 people received IB in August 2010, which is a high proportion compared to the national average. Three quarters of those people had been on IB for five years or more.
	That situation presents us with a challenge. I think that both the hon. Gentleman and I would describe ourselves as political progressives. The question is whether it is humane and progressive to say, “Well, you’ve been on IB for five years, there aren’t many jobs round here, and you can’t really move easily because the house prices are too low, so we’ll just leave you on IB.” That has been the problem for years. People just say, “It’s all a bit difficult, we’ll leave you on IB and we won’t really have any contact with you.” I do not think that that is humane or progressive.
	The hon. Gentleman might be aware that the outgoing Labour Government planned to reassess people on IB. This project is therefore not an evil plot, but something that was planned by the previous Government. The work capability assessment that he criticised was introduced by the previous Government. In the run-up to the last election, the Department commissioned an internal review of the WCA, and we have acted on its conclusions. Perhaps more importantly, an independent review has been undertaken by Professor Harrington, who has suggested a list of things that need to change to make the WCA better. The Department has accepted every single one of his recommendations. The WCA will also be the most reviewed bit of the benefits system because, from memory, there is a statutory requirement to review it every year for five years. Professor Harrington has kindly agreed to play an ongoing role. I cannot commit him for five years, but he has certainly agreed to carry on for now. He has gone out, sat in on WCAs, talked to people and learned lessons from that. We will continue to refine the process in the light of his comments.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the piloting of these measures. We have been piloting migration from incapacity benefit in Burnley and Aberdeen, and are learning lessons from those pilots. Indeed, some of the figures that he quoted probably come from the pilots.
	It is important to stress that because incapacity benefit stopped a few years ago, anybody who is reassessed on IB has, by definition, been on it for at least two and a half years. Therefore, anybody who is deemed capable of work, either in the work-related activity group or with jobseeker’s allowance, will be eligible for the Work programme. The Work programme gives tailored support to individuals, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. It involves payment by results, so the people who provide such welfare-to-work services will not be paid if they do not get somebody into sustainable employment. They therefore have an incentive to meet the individual where they are, to respond if they have a particular health condition, as the hon. Gentleman said, and to see whether there are particular sorts of work that they can do.
	The hon. Gentleman gave the example that someone with multiple sclerosis had been found fit for work. I was inclined to say, “And?” Clearly, some people with MS are not fit for work, and some people with MS are. The challenge is not to write people off because of a condition, but to meet them as individuals, assess their needs and potential, and identify work that they can do or support them if they cannot work. There will be long-term receipt on the support rate, as appropriate. If people can work, welfare-to-work providers will be paid by results to help them. Nobody will be sanctioned for turning down a job that is not there. Nobody will be told, “We’re cutting off your benefit, because you didn’t take a job,” if there are no jobs there. However, where there are jobs, people will be expected to make reasonable efforts to take them, with the right support. That is the strategy that we are adopting, and I believe that it is more humane than simply leaving people on long-term IB receipt.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) raised a number of issues to do with the Child Support Agency, with which I think every Member will have had considerable dealings. Some of us have had CSA cases for a long time. One reason for the reforms is that we feel that the old CSA system and the so-called new CSA system have not worked. She cited the figure of 40p per £1 of maintenance collected, which is nonsense.
	I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the need for strong enforcement powers. There are already pretty strong powers in the system, although I cannot comment on why they have perhaps not been used as they might have been in individual cases. There are serious sanctions available, including direct deduction from earnings, and we want them to be used appropriately.
	My hon. Friend was right to make the point about seeing child support in its wider context, and the Department is certainly committed to doing that. We want to ensure that when people break up, there is not an assumption that they should go to the CSA. To paraphrase what she said in the words that someone once used to me, the CSA is seldom part of the healing process. If we can encourage people to seek some sort of mutual agreement at the point of break-up, and provide them with calculations if they need them, that will be a better strategy.
	I absolutely take my hon. Friend’s point that when relationships have broken down and there are long-standing cases, the situation will be more difficult. However, I can offer her a word of reassurance. Under our current proposals, an application charge is planned only for initial application to the system, not for reassessment. The cases that she mentioned would hopefully not face such a charge. I believe that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), is going to meet her to discuss some individual cases, and I hope that she will be able to respond in more detail.
	I assure the House that we want a system in which, when relationships unfortunately break down, there are incentives and encouragement to form an agreement. The CSA will then be able to act on behalf of children and families when enforcement is needed. We hope that it will take firm and effective action to ensure that children and families get the support that they deserve. We look forward to the ongoing contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough to our consultations on the issue.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now move on to the general debate. Many Members are listed to take part, and a time limit of six minutes has been set. I plan to call the Deputy Leader of the House at about 7.44 pm.

GENERAL MATTERS

Robert Smith: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to raise matters before the Easter recess in the same style as we have previously. I wish to use this opportunity to raise a continuing and growing concern about the impact of the Budget on my constituency and on major investment in the UK economy.
	I must first declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a shareholder in Shell, and my wider interests in the oil and gas industry, but my particular reason for speaking is the interests of my constituency and constituents in the future of that industry and the many jobs that it provides in the north-east of Scotland and throughout the Scottish and UK economy.
	I am motivated in many ways by the memories of what has happened before to the north-east of Scotland when there has been a downturn in investment—the rows of “For Sale” signs, people handing in the keys to their houses, the repossessions and the loss to the local economy of a major industry. It is vital that the Government understand and recognise the contribution of that industry.
	In what was called a Budget for growth, which was otherwise well balanced and effective, it is depressing that so much risk should have been taken with one of the current success stories of the economy. The industry is not just a local interest, it is a national one. One third of industrial investment comes from the work of the oil and gas industry in the North sea and on our continental shelf. It is a major contributor of tax revenues to the Exchequer and a major contributor to our balance of payments and our energy security.
	A matter of growing interest has been the export market that has grown up on the back of the expertise built up in the North sea. That market requires a viable and effective home base. The Government seem to have
	failed to understand the costly environment in the North sea at the moment, and the area’s maturity. There are much smaller finds and much higher costs and risks to investment. It is therefore a very dangerous time to suddenly alter the tax regime. Also, the Chancellor prayed in aid the price of oil, but many of the investors in the North sea are smaller, new entrants, who have already hedged their sales for this year and are not receiving anything like the price that the open market would provide. It has yet to be explained why the Chancellor did not tax the hedge funds rather than those doing the legwork at the coal face.
	The Chancellor talked about decisions made last June, when he was promising not to interfere with the tax regime, and the movement of oil prices since then. Someone who makes a 20-year investment is not interested in a six-month cycle, but in all the peaks and troughs. Recently, the industry had to survive a fall to $35 a barrel and still be able to invest.
	The other crucial point that has been missed is that some of the older fields will now pay 81% tax on their profits, yet they are the vital hubs that ensure that we exploit the minor, smaller fields that are still available. The infill—the new fields—will keep the larger, older platforms and pipework going to enable us to exploit the North sea. If there is a hiatus in that investment and those fields are decommissioned, whole areas of the North sea will be left barren and the oil and gas will never be recovered.
	There is quite a worry not only about the actual tax, but the way in which it was handled. So many reassurances that there would not be a tax change were followed by a sudden tax change. As one industry insider said to me, “It’s worse than Brown because at least he didn’t promise not to do it, when he was in government and did the same thing.” A promise not to do it followed by doing it is much more damaging to the investment climate. The Government will have to work hard to undo that loss of confidence by the investor community.
	Even if, in the long run, quite a few projects still stack up, there is a major hiatus when they have to be put on hold and reappraised, and investors in other parts of the world are saying to their local manager, “What’s the bottom line? Is it still worth going ahead?” That affects the whole supply chain. I was chatting to one manager in the supply chain who said that he had to put his graduate recruitment round on hold because he does not know whether his clients will go ahead with their project. That disruption to management and to activity is most damaging at such an important time, when the industry was one of the few success stories in our economy.
	The Government must restore confidence. I welcomed their agreement to an emergency meeting of PILOT, the industry-Government taskforce, during which the Government undertook to try to restore confidence in the stability of the regime. The Government have floated the idea of field allowances to deal with individual problems. I hope that they realise the number of civil servants that they will have to recruit to manage the North sea on a case-by-case basis so that they can make real-time judgments on the new tax allowances that they are promising.
	The Chancellor prayed in aid the price of oil when the price of gas is well below his $75 trigger. Gas is not a global commodity in the same way, and there is therefore
	a risk that he is putting up the cost of consumers’ gas supplies while taxing profits on an industry that has not got the same upside of a high commodity price.
	The Energy and Climate Change Committee also has a wider concern about investment in new electricity generation, because £200 billion is required and people need the security of knowing that that investment will not be taxed after it is made.
	The Chancellor is right to say that it is our oil, but we need experts to invest in getting it out of the ground. Without that investment, we earn no taxes, gain no jobs, and get no balance of payments help or energy security. The Chancellor must not undermine our energy security and he must restore stability.

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to speak today on the importance of local bus services, which are of continuing concern to my constituents.
	Good local bus services are vital to the local economy, the national economy and hard-working people throughout the country. The Transport Committee’s recent report recognised the importance of effective transport. It stated that
	“supporting sustainable economic growth should be the overriding objective for the Department for Transport”.
	However, that is nothing new. In 2006, the Eddington transport study, which the Labour Government commissioned, concluded that an efficient transport system is vital for a healthy economy. Sir Rod Eddington’s report recognised that people’s ability to travel to work, for work or to find work is crucial to drive the growth that our economy needs.
	The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently advised the unemployed that they should get on a bus to find work. In my constituency, that would be pretty difficult. That is the fatal flaw in his plan—local bus services outside London need considerable improvement, particularly the network in my constituency.
	I grew up in the local area, and I still frequently use local buses, so I know both the best and the worst of our local bus network. During my campaign and since entering the House, I have continued to receive regular concerns from constituents about the local bus service, and I decided to investigate by launching a constituency-wide campaign called the “Big Bus Survey”. Constituents can either complete an online survey or return a postcard. I have already received hundreds of responses, and they continue to come in.
	From the initial responses, it is clear that the people of Houghton and Sunderland South want lower bus fares and a more frequent service. There is also the obvious frustration that bus operators can change routes or pull services with minimal notice or consultation. Local people feel that they do not have a voice and that they cannot influence those decisions.
	Some of the comments I have received are particularly revealing. One constituent said:
	“I don’t use buses at all for one reason—they are far too expensive and it is cheaper and safer by car.”
	One who has young children said that she wants
	“better family deals and access”,
	which was echoed by many other parents. A large number of respondents said that they wanted an improved and direct service so that they can get to the local hospital.
	The replies to the survey so far coincide with the bus watchdog—Passenger Focus—research on what bus users want from their local bus service. Recent results show a reduction in satisfaction with the overall level of service, and a reduction in satisfaction with reliability. Additionally, research by Bus Users UK says that 32% of commuters want a considerable improvement in the bus service.
	One particular concern for many of my constituents is bus fares. As I have said, my survey so far shows that the majority of people want lower fares. With the price of diesel at an all-time high, and bus companies increasingly pressurised to pass on those costs to commuters, I am concerned about the affordability of buses, given that high bus fares are clearly already an issue.
	High bus fares hit all sectors of our society, but particularly students and those seeking work. That is why education maintenance allowance helped with the cost of getting to college. The Association of Colleges has identified that 75% of its member colleges said that the majority of their students get to school by bus. It also found that 94% of its members believe that students will find it harder to attend without EMA because of bus fares.
	For older residents, bus services are a lifeline. Older people are among those who most depend on buses, for example, to access the general practitioner’s surgery or the hospital. They often have no alternative means of transport.
	It is clear that not tackling that problem will have serious and lasting effects, not only for our economy, but for future generations. High Speed 2 is getting considerable attention both inside and outside the House, but my constituents are more concerned with ensuring that we have an affordable and accessible local bus network, which is crucial in my area in the absence of rail or a light rail network.
	If we are to create jobs and drive growth, we need to ensure that we have bus services and the capacity to encourage businesses to invest and to grow. Our constituents also deserve a bus network over which they feel they have a say, and one that responds to their needs and is accessible to all. Those do not strike me as unreasonable demands, and local people deserve better.

Andrew Selous: I should like to make a few brief remarks about the importance of marriage and family policy.
	My constituents, George and Dot Kemp, celebrated their diamond wedding in December 2010, and they were good enough to share with the local paper, the Dunstable Gazette, their secret for a long and happy marriage. George said as follows:
	“The secret to a long and happy marriage can be summed up in six words…The magic words are, ‘I love you,’ and, ‘yes, my dear!’”
	That is a good tip, and good advice perhaps for those of us who aspire to reach George and Dot’s record of 60 years together.
	That is a very happy story, and one that I am pleased to share with the House, but when politicians look at what is happening to family life in our country, we see a much more alarming picture. Only last week, the Office for National Statistics released figures showing the lowest number of marriages in England and Wales since 1895—there were 231,000 marriages in 2009, compared with a peak of 426,000 in 1972. It would be tempting to ask, “Why does this matter? What concern is it of ours as politicians?” I agree that it is wrong for politicians to lecture people, and even worse for them to preach or moralise, but we have a duty to look at what is happening across our constituencies, and to consider its impact on our society.
	We know, for example, that if a child’s parents separate, that child is twice as likely to grow up in poverty as a child whose parents stay together—very relevant on a day when the Government have brought out their child poverty strategy. A child has a 36% chance of growing up in poverty if their parents separate, and only an 18% chance if they stay together. Those statistics are from the Government’s own figures in the “Households Below Average Income” series. We know, however, that marriage is not out of fashion among young people. Survey evidence suggests that more than 90% of young people want to get married eventually—once they are debt-free, can get a home of their own and have sorted out their education—and I know, because I survey them regularly, that 18-year-olds in my constituency are concerned about this issue. More than seven out of 10 tell me that they believe that family breakdown is a big problem in the UK and that they want more done about it.
	Whether we are concerned about the effect on constituents’ lives or the impact on society, we should also be concerned about the financial costs to the country. Estimates vary, but the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has estimated that every year we pay in taxes between £20 billion and £40 billion to pick up the pieces when, sadly, couples separate. What can we do to improve this dire situation? A leading family judge, Mr Justice Coleridge—he should know about this, because he is at the coal face in the family courts—said in 2009 at a Relationships Foundation conference:
	“We are experiencing a period of family meltdown whose effects will be as catastrophic as the meltdown of the ice caps… It will be more destructive than any economic decline caused by international market or financial movements triggered by mismanagement by financial institutions.”
	On the plus side, in showing how things can be different when families stay together, Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, said in another place:
	“Children lucky enough to be born into strong families are advantaged in almost every area for the rest of their lives: school attendance, educational achievement, getting and keeping a job. They will earn more. They will be healthier. They will be more likely to form strong families of their own. Children who do not have that good fortune will be disadvantaged for the rest their lives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 February 2011; Vol. 725, c. 366.]
	We can do a number of things about this situation. We have taken steps to deal with the couple penalty. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who is in his place, raised this matter very well in a recent “Panorama” programme entitled, “Britain’s Missing Dads”. It featured young couples who had been together until the birth of their first child, at which point they suddenly stopped living together. When asked why, they made it clear that
	the loss of about £30 a week was the key factor in driving them apart. That is not a sensible way to design a welfare system, so I am pleased that the moves we are making in universal credit will do something about that. That is a positive start. It is also absolutely right that the Government do more to give our constituents the skills and support necessary to make a success of their family relationships. The Government have committed £7.5 million a year over the next four years to roll out courses such as the “Let’s Stick Together” programme pioneered by the Bristol Community Family Trust. That is welcome indeed. We need more of that type of initiative.

Eric Joyce: Yesterday’s centrefold in The Guardian—if I may call it that, although the term centrefold has been expropriated by a different publication —had a good picture of two artisanal miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo scraping away in what was basically a big hole. They do 24-hour shifts and get paid very little. The picture emphasised how rudimentary mining is in the DRC. Mining is something that could generate enormous wealth in the Congo, but it invariably does not, because the market is very difficult.
	I want to mention a different expropriation today—one that should give us all pause. I want also to emphasise the extractive industry’s transparency initiative and the Dodd-Frank legislation in the US. As is increasingly accepted on both sides of the House, these are examples of good practice that can help businesses to operate properly in Africa, helping Africans themselves and delivering mutual benefit from the good trade that City companies do. As has been made clear in The  Times Africa CEO conference in the past couple of weeks, the City of London is one of the country’s great strengths. Right now there are new and important opportunities for investment in Africa. Companies listed in this country can contribute more to Africa’s development than aid ever could. Aid is extremely important, but ultimately, the only way out of poverty for those countries is through proper investment.
	We expect our senior executives to put their figures and their shareholders first, and yet there is a tipping point. Where a company prospers by doing business in Africa, we expect Africans to acquire some benefit—through proper taxation payment and, for example, jobs. Pretty much all the executives whom I have spoken to agree with that; indeed, that was very much the positive attitude on parade at The  Times conference. However, where a corporation ignores the principles of mutual benefit, that can do enormous damage to the prospects of investment in Africa. The bad reputation that a company acquires can shake the confidence of other investors. I want to say a few words, therefore, about a particular example of a large and would-be successful corporation wrecking its reputation and integrity by entering into ropy deals with, frankly, shady middlemen—the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, a FTSE 100 company.
	The centrefold in The  Guardian referred to the DRC Government apparently raising only $13 million in tax from mining licences in the last financial year. Before that, however, they raised $55 million per annum from one company alone—First Quantum, the country’s largest taxpayer. Last year, however, the DRC Government essentially expropriated the assets of First Quantum for
	reasons that looked extremely dubious indeed. First Quantum had invested $700 million in a mine in Kolwezi which was generating thousands of jobs, and it was the largest taxpayer in the DRC. For good reasons—again, having looked at the mining and licensing contracts—I have no doubt that that was the right thing to do. However, one or two contracts were cancelled for reasons that we should be more aware of.
	Inefficient artisanal mining raises small amounts of money compared with the enormous investment that First Quantum had made. In essence, First Quantum had its assets expropriated, which were then sold on to a middleman—a man called Dan Gertler, whose only business qualification as far as I can see is that he is a close personal friend of the President of the DRC. Having bought those assets for a song, Mr Gertler put them on the market and within a few months a FTSE 100-listed London company bought them for $175 million. Not one whit of that enormous benefit to him—and perhaps others: it is very hard to tell, because there was no transparency in the deal—would have gone to the people of the DRC. It was an absolute and utter shocker.
	What of ENRC, the buyer? Lots of companies said, “We’re not touching this with a bargepole—it completely stinks,” but ENRC was absolutely up for it. ENRC is ostensibly a successful FTSE 100 corporation, but it is underperforming on the stock market, in spite of the wealth of assets. It should be striding away from its competitors, but its deal in the Congo has left it without a CEO, its reputation trashed and its major investors, including the Kazakhstani Government, wanting out, and it has now become a possible takeover target. There is a lesson there for all to see. Perhaps it is time that ENRC grew up or just passed over its assets to somebody else who can manage them better.
	However, there is one other lesson: that non-executives should be careful that they are not simply used as patsies for puppet masters of questionable integrity. ENRC’s board is primarily Kazakhstani—I have no quibble with the Kazakhstani Government; I think that they are pretty nervous about the whole thing too—but there are also three well-known UK business men on the board. They are Sir Paul Judge, Ken Olisa and Sir Richard Sykes. Ken Olisa wrote a letter to the Financial Times last week that was comical in its naivety. He has clearly been put up as a front man, but he made a complete fool of himself by complaining about the Lombard column’s criticism of ENRC. Essentially, however, the point man from the UK perspective is Sir Richard Sykes. He has had a pretty sound reputation in the past. He ran a large multinational, and he is used as the man who calms the markets. This whole business has done his reputation immeasurable harm, however. People in the City are aware of that fact, and I hope that people on both sides of the House will be aware of it, now that I have raised the matter.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on this point. Does he agree that all this could be avoided if there were more transparency in such deals? The Government are moving towards that, which is welcome, but none of these things would take place if we had legislation like the Dodd-Frank Act in the UK.

David Amess: I wish to raise a number of points before the House adjourns for the Easter recess. Proposed changes to legislation will come into effect on 1 May relating to herbal medicines and vitamin and mineral supplements. Those changes will have a major impact on the Annandale homeopathic and allergy clinic in Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex. Varying strengths of such supplements have always been available for purchase, but my constituents understand that under the proposed European Union regulations the strengths of vitamin and mineral supplements available will be standardised. The standardised levels will be too low, and the ability to prescribe and retail such supplements to patients will consequently be adversely affected. I would be grateful if the appropriate Minister could write to me about that matter.
	Another constituent has contacted me about an e-mail that he received from the Lottery House which claimed that he had won £1 million on the lottery in the Netherlands. He was sent numerous fraudulent letters asking him to pay money into various foreign accounts in order to access his lottery winnings, and he has spent thousands of pounds trying to access that money. This is not an isolated incident, and I would be grateful if the appropriate Minister could look into this type of fraud, which is pretty rife at the moment.
	Mr Rod Godfrey, of 153 Hadleigh road, Leigh-on-Sea, has recently visited me at my surgery to discuss a serious problem with the tax code that he has been given by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Mr Godfrey pays his tax through PAYE, as he has always done, through a tax code issued to Tower Hamlets by HMRC. He has now been advised that he has underpaid by a substantial amount of money. It is completely unreasonable that my constituent should be expected to pay such a large sum of money, given that it is the fault of HMRC and not that of Mr Godfrey. Again, I would be grateful if the appropriate Minister could comment on that.
	My next comments are not directed at any Members present today, but I am increasingly fed up that the West Lothian question has not been addressed. It is completely unfair that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members have two votes and that we poor English Members have only one. I hope that that matter will be addressed during the course of this Parliament.
	I am also concerned about the oppression of 3,400 members of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, including 1,000 women in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Those residing in the camp have undergone psychological torture and serious medical restrictions. Already, 208 Members have signed an early-day motion calling for the Government to provide the necessary protection for the residents of Camp Ashraf. Yesterday, in Committee Room 14, a couple of US Senators addressed a very well-attended meeting, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will raise this issue with his American counterpart.
	Religious freedoms are under threat across the world. Recent issues of significant concern include high-profile assassinations of public figures who have attacked Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, the arrest and detention of dozens of Christians in Iran, and the assassination of a Muslim cleric and attacks on Christians in Nigeria. There is no simple solution to the situation in Pakistan. There is
	clearly a need for proper international discussion on blasphemy laws. Again, I hope that the appropriate Minister will be able to address this point.
	I am increasingly uncomfortable about the way in which the Equitable Life issue was dealt with during the Committee stage of the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill. I remain concerned about the situation of with-profit annuitants who took out policies before the September 1992 cut-off date. About 10,000 elderly people have now been excluded from the compensation scheme and are set to lose thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of pounds. Those people were “locked in” and suffered the same maladministration as the other policyholders, who will be paid 100% compensation. I had certainly not appreciated in Committee that those people would be excluded. I know that the Treasury team are working extremely hard to try to balance the books, given the terrible legacy that we were left, but I must tell the Deputy Leader of the House that I am worried about the promises that were made before the general election. Some of my elderly constituents feel that we have not honoured them.
	To end on a brighter note, I am delighted to say that the Better Southend project, involving four major regeneration works at Cuckoo corner, Progress road, Victoria circus and City beach, has, thanks to our excellent Conservative-controlled council, been completed on time at the end of March. I ask local residents to judge those schemes on how they work out in practice.
	I am also delighted to say that any number of international teams visiting Southend at the moment can consider using the town as a training base for their international athletes. The latest to arrive are the Malaysians, so it is all happening in Southend. We hope that these international teams are successful and, above all, that British athletes will enjoy great success in the 2012 games. Of course, we all wish the happy royal couple every success in the royal wedding on 29 April.

Paul Flynn: The swine flu pandemic that never was is an extraordinary story of bad science, fortunes made, public money wasted and fear-mongering on a mass scale. It started in May 2009 when a new branch of flu was detected in Mexico. The epidemiology then and now is still the same—that this flu was very mild. It killed about one in every 10,000 who had it.
	On the World Health Organisation website in May 2009, the definition of a phase 6 pandemic—a crucial issue—was that the flu had to be likely to cause “a terrible number” of deaths and serious injuries. In the next month, that definition was changed to take the severity of the flu out of the definition; it was described as a flu that was being experienced in more than two WHO areas. In June 2009, however, Margaret Chan declared a phase 6 pandemic. The world press turned up and asked what a phase 6 pandemic was and whether there was a phase 6.5 or a phase 7 pandemic. She said, “No, this is the most severe pandemic—the top one.” Understandably, the world press went into hysteria mode and announced that this was as bad as the 1918 flu that killed between 25 million and 40 million people.
	There was never any possibility that it was going to turn out like that. In this country, Liam Donaldson said that the likelihood was that deaths would be between
	3,000 and 750,000. The average we should expect, he said, was 65,000 deaths. The WHO said that we should expect between 2 million and 7 million deaths in the world. In the event, there were 18,000 deaths. In Britain, there were 447 deaths of people with swine flu, but fewer than 150 died of swine flu. It is, of course, a tragedy for all the individuals involved, but this was nothing compared to the normal seasonal flu we have almost every year, when 10,000 and sometimes 20,000 people die.
	The World Health Organisation has been challenged since and there have been a number of inquiries. In this country, we had an inquiry by Deirdre Hine, but I am afraid that it was premature. It did not come up with the right answers because it did not ask the right questions. There is a far better inquiry, just published, by the European People’s Party group in the European Parliament. Its main conclusion is that next time, the severity of the flu must be a feature in any warnings given. It is extraordinary that in calling this a phase 6 pandemic, no judgment was made about the severity of the disease.
	What was the cost to this country? We spent £1.2 billion and we suffered greatly from anxiety and fear. That was particularly the case for parents of young children, who were told that there would be 65,000 deaths. The health service was disrupted for nearly a year. All its priorities were changed, and vital services were neglected so that the necessary preparations could be made. Heaven knows what the cost was of the closure of all the schools, for instance. All that was unnecessary, and we must now consider what we can do about it. It is difficult to blame the national Governments, because they would be damned if they did and damned if they didn’t, but can we say that spending more than £1 billion in Britain had a good result? Can we say that more people would have died if we had not spent that money? In fact, the reverse is true.
	A splendid example is provided by Ewa Kopacz, who was the Polish Health Minister at the time. In November 2009, she made a very brave speech saying that the Polish Government would not buy vaccines and antiviral medicines because she did not believe that H1N1 flu posed any serious threat. In Britain, having spent £1 billion, we lost 7.4 people per million of the population; Poland, having spent about 7 zlotys, ended up with 4.7 deaths per million. In other words, Poland spent virtually nothing, and suffered half the number of deaths per million that we suffered. There is a lesson to be learnt from that. As I said earlier, I do not blame the national Governments, because they were in a very difficult position. They had the advice of the World Health Organisation, which is a body that we should respect, because we need a body that is above the national melee and national interests. Can we blame the World Health Organisation? We certainly can.
	I have been to Geneva on a number of occasions. Incidentally, my general election result was greatly improved by the fact that I was there at the time. Because of the ash cloud I had to stay there for five days, which, according to my constituency workers, helped to ensure that the swing against the Labour party was one of the lowest in Wales, and to secure my re-election. Absence is a great factor. However, although we have heard reports from various organisations throughout the world, we must face the fact that the problem lay not with
	national Governments but with the World Health Organisation. The decision was taken by an emergency committee with 15 members—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

Neil Parish: I welcome the opportunity to contribute, and I thank the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee.
	Let me begin by endorsing what was said by the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) about the West Lothian question. It is time that that was sorted out, because too many votes are being cast twice by Labour and Scottish National party Members. I also want to take a leaf out of the hon. Gentleman’s book when it comes to dealing with constituents who are dealing with real problems. I am thinking primarily of our brave troops in Afghanistan, both men and women, and the great sacrifices that they are making.
	One such trooper, Lyndon Chatting-Walters, of 23 Engineer Regiment, is now 20 years old. On 19 July 2008, while serving in our armed forces in Afghanistan, he was blown up in an explosion. He suffered shrapnel injuries to his face, groin, legs and both arms, broken teeth, a damaged arm, jaw and ankle, and muscle and tendon injuries. He has also experienced constant trouble with his back, and will be susceptible to arthritis and rheumatism for the rest of his life.
	That young guy was taken to Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham, which patched him up and did everything that it could for him. However, even while experiencing great pain and suffering, he was determined to return to Afghanistan. He went back in autumn and served for a couple of months, but the pain from the injuries that he sustained in 2008 was so bad that he was invalided back to the United Kingdom just after Christmas last year. He is still waiting for appointments to see doctors so that the nature of all his injuries can be clarified, and he is still seeking proper compensation from our armed forces Ministers. I have written to them, and recently wrote again to the Secretary of State for Defence. I know it is not directly his responsibility, but this young man has given his all for his country, and I really do feel that he has been treated shabbily. I do not know whether the fault for that lies with our bureaucracy or elsewhere, but I appeal in the strongest terms for us to do something for that young man, because he has given his all, and given his future as well, and he must be adequately looked after and adequately compensated.
	My next case concerns Ukraine. A constituent of mine, Mr Barry Pring, joined a dating agency in 2007, met a Ukrainian woman online and later married her. To cut a long story short, tragically, a year later Mr Pring was run over in a very suspicious car accident 28 km outside Kiev. An investigation is being carried out into whether—I think I can say this under parliamentary privilege—his wife was responsible for his death. Immediately after his death, she came to Britain and started trying to get hold of all his assets, and he was a reasonably wealthy man. I have written to Ministers to
	try to find out what exactly we can do. Of course, I understand the issue of the sovereign powers of Ukraine, but this case is not being investigated properly by the Ukrainian authorities. Every time we try to get a proper investigation, that is blocked. There is no doubt that there are problems within the police authorities in Ukraine. We have dealt with our own police and with Interpol, and I appeal to Ministers to do much more to make sure that a proper investigation into the death of my constituent is carried out, so that his family can know what happened to him and can put the whole matter to rest.
	The final case is about a problem that dates back to long before I became a Member of Parliament. It concerns Terence and Wendy Hart. When Mr Hart’s wife was taken ill in 2006, he had problems with the Axminster medical practice, and there was an encounter between him and the practice doctors. Mr Hart was very emotional at the time and was accused of being abusive, but he has always denied that. We have taken that case to the health service ombudsman, and we have been down all the other bureaucratic routes. I have contacted Ministers about it too, yet we still cannot get this case settled. I again appeal to Ministers about it.

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I echo his tribute to our brave troops in Afghanistan, and in particular I wish him well in his efforts to secure better support for the trooper whose case he brought to the attention of the House, and who has made a huge sacrifice for our country.
	I rise to raise two issues. First, I want to ask a series of questions on the Government’s view of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and, through them, to ask a series of questions of the Sri Lankan Government. I understand that the UN Secretary-General is due to receive a report on 13 April produced by a three-member panel that has been mandated to advise him on options for addressing accountability for crimes committed during the final stages of the recent conflict, with which all who have an interest in Sri Lanka will be familiar. I ask whether that document will be published, and if not—or, indeed, if we are unsure whether it will be published—I ask the British Government to call on the UN Secretary-General to publish it.
	Furthermore, will the Government urge the lifting of the prevention of terrorism Act in Sri Lanka? The UN urged this as long ago as 2000. Will they urge the Sri Lankan Government to release those who have been arrested, unless they are charged with criminal offences and remanded in custody by a civilian court? Will the Government urge the Sri Lankan Government to adhere to a 2006 presidential directive by registering detainees, informing their families and the Sri Lankan human rights commission of the place of their arrest and detention? Lastly, will our Government urge the Government of Sri Lanka to allow the Red Cross full access to the prisons where those still detained after the conflict are held?
	In January and February, two of the world’s most respected human rights groups, Amnesty International and Minority Rights Group International, raised, in separate reports, a series of concerns about the human, social and economic rights of minority communities in Sri Lanka. MRGI argued that nearly two years after the
	end of the war between the LTTE—the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—and the Government, minorities face daily repression, and are marginalised in development policies and in politics in Sri Lanka. The MRGI’s report documents cases of land in the north and east of Sri Lanka being seized by military and civilian authorities and used for the construction of everything from military encampments to hotels and leisure facilities. The report notes that international and national media and non-governmental organisations still have restricted access, and that there is a high level of militarisation and state control over freedom of movement and association.
	Amnesty’s report goes further. It believes that there are credible allegations that both Government security forces and the LTTE committed serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law throughout their conflict, particularly in the final months, including summary executions, torture, attacks on civilians and other war crimes. The Sri Lankan Government have established a domestic “lessons learned and reconciliation commission”, but most international observers have argued that the gravity of the accusations is such that a truly independent international investigation is necessary to address these issues fully and ensure accountability. That is why the UN Secretary-General established a three-member panel to advise him on options and why we need to have those recommendations publicised and made clear.
	A longer-term problem in Sri Lanka has helped to drive what appears, at least, to be a culture of impunity and tolerance of breaches of human rights. The country has been under an almost continuous state of emergency since the early 1970s and, as Amnesty has made clear, successive Governments have used national security as the reason to bring in a series of broad and complex emergency regulations. If we look at the history of Sri Lanka, it is obvious that security has been a real concern, but let me be clear that the scale on which these emergency regulations have been used raises concerns. They have, at times, been used against critics of the Government from within the majority Sinhala community, as well as against those within the Tamil and Muslim communities. That is why I ask whether our Government will continue to press the Sri Lankan Government to lift the prevention of terrorism Act and to press for the Sri Lankan human rights commission and relatives to be informed when someone has been arrested.
	The second issue that I wish to raise today is very different, although it is of equal, if not more, concern to all my constituents. I am talking about the future of the three polyclinics that serve my constituency: the Alexandra Avenue centre, which was opened by Lord Darzi; the Pinn medical centre in Pinner; and the urgent care centre at Northwick Park hospital. They provide walk-in services from 8 am to 8 pm all year round and they are hugely popular with my constituents, but they are under threat of closure or restriction. I urge the Government to take the opportunity of the pause in consideration of the current NHS reforms to examine the future of the polyclinics in my constituency and to recognise the huge support that those have from my constituents.

Paul Maynard: It is a pleasure to speak about the preservation of Britain’s built civil nuclear heritage, but I understand
	that the topic might at first seem rather obscure, if not obtuse, to many Members, and the timing peculiar. First, I must declare an interest as a member of the Twentieth Century Society, which campaigns to preserve examples of built heritage and modern architecture for future generations. I am not here to debate the merits or demerits of nuclear power—I am sure we will have plenty of debates on that in the months and years to come—but rather to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that as the decommissioning process for nuclear power stations begins, those buildings come to the end of their industrial usage and we have to consider whether we wish to preserve them for future generations.
	There might be arguments about whether such buildings should be preserved. Those against nuclear power might wonder why anyone would wish to preserve a nuclear power station, but let me quote Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth, who told The Sunday Times on 19 November 2006:
	“We need to be reminded of the huge amounts of money they wasted and the radioactive legacy they left us. We should preserve these buildings as a monument to all that stupidity”.
	Equally, those of us who are more positive about nuclear energy and think it still has a role to play might think that we should celebrate and protect examples of our world-leading role in developing civil nuclear power. It is often forgotten that we were at the forefront of developing the use of nuclear power for civil means. Just as Ironbridge and the Pontcysyllte aqueduct are examples of Britain’s greatness in the 17th and 18th centuries, Dounreay, Hinkley Point and Windscale, or Sellafield, are examples of our greatness in the 20th century. We need to retain that sense of heritage and it is vital that we debate what to do with them and understand their heritage value. They certainly have architectural value, but they also have a quite separate heritage value. As English Heritage’s 2006 report on our atomic age made clear:
	“Nuclear installations due to their size have also created distinctive late 20th-century landscapes…The power station sites are overshadowed by the large rectangular architectural blocks of the reactor buildings and turbine halls which in turn dominate their usually low-lying coastal locations and often provide focal points in the landscape for many miles around”.
	My experience, from living on the coast in Blackpool, is of walking out of my front door and being able to see the rectangular block of Heysham power station shining from 20 or 30 miles away across Morecambe bay. It is a major landmark in the local area. It does not quite compete with Blackpool tower, but it is certainly always on the horizon. We have to realise that in those communities the role of nuclear power has been not just one of environmental concern or energy production, but one of building communities. Places such as Sellafield and Dounreay have been major providers of jobs, and communities have sprung up out of nowhere. Just as many Opposition Members fiercely defend the interests of coalfield communities and the heritage of mining that has gone on for many years, we should not lose sight of the importance of the communities who have contributed to building our nuclear industry.
	That is why it is vital to take notice of the current consultation process being carried out by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. In September 2010, it announced its initial intention that
	“none of our facilities will be preserved for national heritage”.
	On one level that is understandable, as one cannot divorce the heritage component of a nuclear power station for the obvious reason that it has a high degree of radiological risk associated with it. Take, for example, Trawsfynydd power station in north Wales, which was not listed, not because it had no architectural value—far from it, as it was designed by Sir Basil Spence, who designed Coventry cathedral—but because it was sitting on a toxic time bomb and the costs of preserving that toxic time bomb outweighed its architectural value. Conversely, Cadw, the Welsh heritage agency, has at least registered the equally notable garden by Dame Sylvia Crowe and the associated landscaping that surrounded the power station. That shows that we can preserve heritage not just by preserving something that is toxic or radiological but by understanding the wider heritage aspects.
	That is why I welcome the fact that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has grudgingly conceded that a national nuclear archive will be established at Dounreay as part of its decommissioning process. I urge both Dounreay and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to consider fully what they mean by nuclear heritage and what they intend to retain in the archive. It must not merely hold photographs of the buildings, but provide an understanding of the lives of the people who built those power stations, made them a success and relied on them for their livelihoods. It is vital that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a coherent plan to protect them for future generations.

Frank Field: I wish to raise briefly the animal welfare issue that dare not speak its name—namely, the licensing of animal experiments. I do so mindful of what many of us have gained in the past and present, and will gain in future, from a number of those experiments, and of the fact that public opinion on what is proper for animal experiments changes. The House has reflected those changing views. At one time one would have stood here and talked about testing cosmetics on animals, but such testing is now forbidden. I want to discuss the regulatory role we assumed when we established the Animal Procedures Committee and question whether we are being complacent in assuming that everything is fine in that regulatory system. In so doing, I want to ask what further actions—new actions—we should take.
	Last year, 3.6 million experiments were licensed in this country to be performed on animals. Only three of those licences were referred to the Animal Procedures Committee for consideration. The others were decided by Home Office civil servants. If we tally up the number of experiments on animals that the House has agreed to since the establishment of the current system in 1986, we get a total of 65 million. I want to contrast the care that the House took over possible cruelty in hunting with dogs with the care we have taken in our supervisory role for those 65 million experiments. The House spent 700 hours considering changing the law on hunting with dogs. We spent only seven hours committing our country to the war in Iraq. We did not spend one second on those 65 million experiments.
	I want to question our sense of priority and that of animal charities. In doing so, I raise a central question about the attitude of mind and the training of those officers who had to decide, for example, to grant licences for the 3.6 million experiments that took place last year. We lay on them a duty to weigh up the pain those animals will suffer and the gains that we as a society could accrue from those experiments. Obviously the animals have no say in whether the pain is greater than the gain, but I think that we take it for granted that all those decisions by those officers are right and that the pain inflicted on the animals is less than what society gains.
	In order to provoke a debate on the matter at some stage, I wonder what role the Deputy Leader of the House thinks the House should play. Should we spend the next 25 years never discussing the number of experiments on animals? What role might a Select Committee play, and what role should the animal charities play? Every time somebody writes to me about the latest thing that is happening to animals, I write back and say, “That’s my view on the particular issue you’ve raised, but will you raise with the organisation that you belong to and support this issue of experiments on animals, which the House of Commons rarely debates and, in fact, is never raised with me or, probably, with other hon. Members by the animal charities themselves?”

Mel Stride: I am listening with very great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. He may be familiar with the memorial in Park lane to animals and their suffering in wartime, which has the inscription, “They had no choice”. Is that an area which he believes might be looked at more closely, as well as the area of experimentation?

Frank Field: I certainly do not want such a memorial; I want the memorial to be in this House, and in what we do about the numbers, questioning whether all those experiments are gainfully employed for the benefit of mankind, and what the animal charities themselves might do. Why has none of them written to me about the matter? Should they not raise, in coalition form, the political issue of the apparent lack of supervision that we give to the whole regulatory procedure? Might they also raise with the Home Office how we can be so sure that the gains that we accrue from those 3.6 million experiments last year will outweigh the pain that those animals felt?

Jack Lopresti: I, too, thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I would very much like to focus on antisocial behaviour and the steady creep of a seemingly higher tolerance of it by our local agencies and local police authorities.
	When I say that antisocial behaviour is increasingly tolerated, I do not mean that there has been a willing submission by our constituents. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have seen examples from their own constituencies of harassment, racial abuse left unchecked, elderly and vulnerable constituents too terrified to leave their homes, and noise disturbances and large gatherings that are so frequent as to impact on the quality of people’s lives.
	One of my constituents, an elderly lady who lives alone, is being constantly and, I believe, systematically intimidated by a neighbour. She has come to me because she has been unable to enlist the help and support of her local housing society or, indeed, of the police. She feels that no one is taking her problems seriously, and the suggestion, “Well, you can always move,” which believe it or not came from the police, was not particularly helpful.
	One of the most serious cases that I have been asked to help with concerns a couple, living barely half a mile from me, who are being subjected to constant verbal homophobic abuse and intimidation. They decided to take their case to the authorities, but it took almost a year for them to receive a response that fully acknowledged all the problems that they faced. In the end, one of the perpetrators was arrested, but no further action was taken, and after yet another incident my constituent decided to confront the individuals responsible, which he did only in a measured and verbal fashion, but was then himself arrested by the police.
	I hope that those terrible examples of how some of my constituents have suffered at the hands of aggressive, intimidating and destructive behaviour by others demonstrates to the House that the current methods of dealing with such issues are inadequate given the task that they face. I am reluctant to call those incidents antisocial behaviour; to me they are crimes and should be dealt with as such. I am, however, encouraged by the Government’s proposals for and ambitions in tackling this serious problem, which runs through our communities.
	The Minister with responsibility for crime prevention, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) has recognised the slow and bureaucratic way in which complaints are dealt with, and that it sometimes results in
	“months and months and months to obtain relief for communities that may be being very hard-pressed by the problems of anti-social behaviour.”
	In reacting to that problem, the Government recently announced community triggers, stating that
	“if five people have made a complaint that’s not been followed through, they’re able to escalate it to the agencies that are supposed to be providing that response.”
	The goal must be that no case of intimidation or abuse goes unchecked, and we must rebuild the partnership between the police and the local community.
	Most welcome is the report published last Tuesday by Baroness Newlove, the Government’s champion for active safe communities, who has herself been the victim of a terrible crime—the murder of her husband outside their home. The Baroness puts it perfectly in her report:
	“The public are on the frontline in suffering the effects of crime and antisocial behaviour but on the backline when it comes to decisions about how to deal with the problem.”
	I welcome several of the recommendations in her report, such as the community reward, whereby if information provided by the community leads to a conviction, the community is then given a reward to spend on crime prevention work; giving the public a single point of contact through the roll-out of the 101 number to report antisocial behaviour; and plans to enhance the street level crime maps scheme so people can use it to report crime and agencies can publish details of what action was taken against offenders.
	With these new powers and initiatives for residents must be a greater accountability of the local police. That will become a reality with the Government’s plans to replace police authorities with directly elected police and crime commissioners by May 2012. I agree with the Government that this will make the police
	“more accountable to the public and responsive to local people, more focused at a national level and more effective at tackling crime, as well as providing better value for money”.
	On another local front of crime prevention and deterrence, I must raise an issue of considerable importance to my constituents and our surrounding area—the proposed move of our police helicopter. At present, the western counties air operations unit covers the counties of Bristol, Somerset and Gloucestershire. It is based less than three minutes’ flying time from Bristol so that it can react to any serious crime in the city and the surrounding areas. Until the creation of the unit, the area suffered high levels of vehicle crime, vehicle pursuits and on-street crime such as ram raiding. The presence of the police helicopter within a few minutes has markedly reduced that level of crime. I have been supported in my campaign against the move by Councillor Brian Allinson, a former top-ranking police officer who was responsible for the introduction of the helicopter in the first place. I continue to be concerned by the proposed move of the aircraft away from Filton airfield to Wiltshire, as that will have a very serious effect on its ability to reach incidents in the local area in an acceptable time scale.
	Finally on the problem of antisocial behaviour, I believe that the previous Government were far too soft on those who intimidate, disrupt and bring misery to the lives of others. I would like to share with the House a simple question that was put to me by a constituent: when did the law stop being on the side of good and decent people who work hard, play by the rules, and ask only for the right to live in peace and privacy?

Chuka Umunna: I should like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate.
	On 9 February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and gave a statement on the Project Merlin agreement that was reached between the banks and the Government. He outlined what he described as the essentials of a “new settlement” with our major banks following the global financial crisis of 2008. He said that under the agreement the banks would lend more money, especially to small businesses, pay more taxes, pay less in bonuses, be more transparent about the bonuses they do pay, and make a greater contribution to our regional economy and society. If this is what the agreement achieves, it is of course most welcome, but my impression is that it falls far short of this because there are so many holes in the small print and it lacks teeth.
	How confident can we be that the settlement will result in more lending to small and medium-sized enterprises? The Chancellor told us that under the agreement, Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds, HSBC and Santander had agreed to lend more money to SMEs. We were told that overall gross new lending to all businesses, large and small, would increase from £179 billion to £190 billion, and that these targets would be monitored by the Bank of England, which had
	“agreed to collect the relevant data and publish them quarterly.”
	The Chancellor said that to help to ensure that the agreement on lending is honoured,
	“the pay of the chief executives of each bank…will be linked to their performance against…SME lending targets.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 313.]
	However, there are a number of problems with all this. The lending targets are gross, not net. As the Business Secretary said in the Daily Mail on 23 March last year, a gross lending target lets the banks “off the hook” because they can achieve a gross lending target while withdrawing capital from SMEs. The banks’ statement on Merlin refers to a commitment to lend up to £190 billion “should sufficient demand arise”, so it is quite feasible that they could argue that the demand had not arisen, which surely presents a get-out clause.
	On the scope of the monitoring exercise to be carried out by the Bank of England, the Governor could not have been clearer when he appeared before the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, on 1 March. He said:
	“We’re not monitoring. What we are doing is putting up on our website the data that banks submit after a fairly cursory plausibility check. We are not auditing the data that are submitted”.
	Then there is the claim that CEO pay will be tied to performance against the lending targets. Again, when one reads the small print a different picture emerges. The banks’ statement on Merlin simply says that whether lending targets are met will be given more weight in the performance metrics of the CEOs concerned, but Treasury officials appearing in front of the Treasury Committee on 29 March were unable to tell us how much weight would be given in the performance metrics of the CEO in each case. Furthermore, in a parliamentary answer on this point given to me by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I was told:
	“The calibration of performance metrics of chief executive remuneration is a matter for each individual bank.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 433W.]
	On the tax take from the banking sector, I have given credit to the Government before for unilaterally implementing the bank levy—it is just a shame they set it at a low level, given that they are not renewing Labour’s bank bonus tax. In his statement, the Chancellor claimed Labour’s bank bonus tax raised £2.3 billion despite the fact that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has clearly stated that it raised £3.5 billion. The Financial Times looked into that and said that the Chancellor reached his £2.3 billion figure by lopping off £1.2 billion from the real £3.5 billion figure on account of income tax and national insurance that the Exchequer might have lost because of lower bonus payouts, which the FT described as
	“a highly speculative behavioural assumption.”
	Large bonus payouts dominated the headlines at the beginning of this year, and in his statement the Chancellor said that the four major banks had agreed that total bonuses for their UK-based staff would be lower than last year. In each case, we were told that the non-executive director who chairs the remuneration committee of each bank would have to confirm personally in writing that those agreements had been met, yet the banks’ statement says:
	“Nothing in this statement derogates from the obligation of the banks, and their boards and remuneration committees, to manage pay policy in a way which protects and enhances the interests of their shareholders.”
	Why should we believe that the banks will not wave that flag as an excuse when it comes to meeting the commitments on pay?
	The Chancellor also said the banks have committed to disclose the pay details of not only their executive board members but the top five highest-paid executives not on the board, meaning that the salary details of at least seven executives at each bank will be published this year. Clearly, that Merlin provision has no teeth, because the chief executive of the Financial Services Authority has said that he has
	“no power under the Financial Services and Markets Act to compel firms to supply information where it is not required for our regulatory functions''.
	That of course falls far short of what was required in the Walker review.
	In conclusion, Project Merlin was welcome at the time, but it all seems rather aspirational, and there are gaping holes in the agreement. There is hope: on Monday of next week, the Independent Commission on Banking will publish its interim report. We hope that it will be robust and wide-ranging.

Stephen Gilbert: I was just reflecting on what a pleasure it is to have these little nuggets of debate at the end of term; it is one of the unexpected pleasures of being a new Member of Parliament. I want to associate myself with, among others, the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) about animals and those by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) about antisocial behaviour. The issue that I want to bring to the House’s and the Government’s attention is the role of incineration in the UK’s strategy for dealing with domestic, municipal and other waste.
	It might interest the House to know that according to the UK Without Incineration Network, about 90 applications for mass burn incinerators are being considered and 30 incinerators are operational across the country. The applications include one in Cornwall in a village called St Dennis in my constituency, and I want to talk about that later after I have made some general remarks about incineration.
	It is quite clear from the evidence that incineration depresses recycling rates, wastes resources and releases greenhouse gases. Schemes are often forced through against the backdrop of strong public opposition. The business model for incineration often relies on an exaggeration of future levels of waste. Incinerators create potentially harmful emissions and leave a hazardous by-product in the fly ash that remains. As well as all that, the alternatives to incineration are cheaper, more flexible, quicker to implement and better for the environment. The question we are left with is “Why?”
	Of course, for the industry and for local authorities across the country, incineration is a quick fix. It is an off-the-shelf solution, a one-off easy win to deal with the problem. However, in life I find that the easy solutions are often not the correct solutions. Rather than simply burn our waste, we should focus on reusing and recycling, separating food and other waste, and getting the maximum value out of the stuff that we dispose of. Incineration creates a Catch-22 situation in which we cannot achieve that value. For example, few local authorities are prepared to collect plastic waste other than bottles as there is
	limited potential for it to be recycled. That locks the recycling industry into a position in which it will never be able to achieve the requisite economies of scale or to recycle and reuse the maximum possible amount.
	We know that private finance contracts for waste that include incineration, such as that proposed for my constituency, depress recycling rates. They must do. They rely on having a steady amount of waste to fill the incinerators in each and every year of their operation. Given that criterion, we will never be able to achieve the maximum possible level of recycling.
	Accounting for recovered energy, incineration produces twice or more the CO2 per unit of power than energy produced by fossil fuels. Incinerators that do not maximise the heat that they are producing for other benefits have worse carbon emissions than gas or coal-fired power stations and a worse effect on climate change.
	Incineration is not the way householders want their discarded material to be managed. Wherever an incinerator is planned anywhere in the country, protest groups are launched. Such people are not nimbys; they care about the future of our environment and recognise that there is a different way to do things.
	Many waste PFI contracts are entered into as a response to the huge predicted increases in the quantity of household waste. In fact, household waste has fallen in many areas. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the average annual increase in municipal waste from 2001-02 to 2006-07 was just 0.2%—far short of the predicted 3% year-on-year rises on which many business models for incineration are based.

Graham Evans: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on an excellent speech, which I agree with 100%. In my constituency, a business case was made for incineration and the application talked about 20% of the waste being supplied by road and 80% by rail. Come the retrospective planning permission, it changed to 80% by road and 20% by rail. That was done just so that planning permission could be obtained.

Stephen Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In Cornwall, the prediction is that there would be more than 1,000 additional lorry movements per week to serve the 240,000-tonne incinerator that would dominate the historic village in my constituency.
	I am sure that in his constituency, just as in mine, there are concerns about the health impacts of the dioxins that are emitted by incinerators, despite the assurances on the filtering process that is used. There are particular concerns about that at start-up and close-down, when dioxins are not monitored.
	During the general election, the incinerator planned for St Dennis was, bizarrely, one of the issues on which all but one of the candidates agreed. I believed then, and I still believe, that incineration is the wrong technology for Cornwall. Having one site to service all of Cornwall’s waste is the wrong solution. St Dennis, a small and ancient village in the middle of Cornwall, is absolutely the wrong place.
	Time after time, when the people of Cornwall have been asked for their views, they have rejected the option of incineration. The local parish councils rejected it, the district council rejected it and the former county council’s planning committee rejected it. The community came
	together across the political divide to oppose the application. Despite that, the applicant, SITA, has appealed those decisions, and senior officers of Cornwall council continue to peddle the doomsday myth to the people of Cornwall that incineration is the only answer to avoid multi-million pound fines—it is not, and they are wrong.
	The application now sits on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I hope that as testament to his commitment to localism, he will back the united view of the local community and put the plans for the incinerator where they belong—in the recycling.

Kate Green: I, too, am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to participate in this evening’s debate.
	I wish to talk about early years provision in Trafford, and I am especially pleased to do so on the day on which the Government publish their much awaited child poverty strategy. We have been told, not least by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, that Trafford is a model council that is in some way managing the miracle of avoiding cuts to front-line services. I must tell the House, as a resident of Trafford, that that is not the case. Today, I want to highlight concerns about the impact on children’s services.
	I believe that Members throughout the House are united in our enthusiasm for Sure Start. We were all pleased when the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), told us that its funding would be protected. Yet in Trafford, despite that assurance, the council has decided to impose a £689,000 cut on the provision of services in our children’s centres. That means the end of universal provision, with a focus on services only for the most vulnerable, with the gaps that will be left being filled with volunteers, if possible.
	What is wrong with that approach? First, where will we find the volunteers? Parents are often too busy to nip down the road and run their local Sure Start centre. More important still, it is vital that children, especially the most disadvantaged, receive the high-quality, professional child care that research has repeatedly shown us can really make a difference to their outcomes. It is important also to recognise that in targeting services, we miss the point that some needs apply right across the social and income spectrum. I could cite, for example, the need for support for post-natal depression, which can occur in all social classes and economic backgrounds. That service has been valued in children’s centres in Trafford. I am pleased to say that it looks as though it will be performed on a voluntary basis for a time, but we ought not to rely on volunteers to provide something that is so fundamentally needed by women from across the social spectrum.
	I worry repeatedly that when we start to talk of targeting services, we introduce the risk of stigmatising them. It is very important, when we want to reach out to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in particular, that we do not create that sense of stigma or residualise our Sure Start children’s centres by keeping them for only the most excluded.
	In that context, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will feed back to the relevant Minister a genuine concern that I have, which I have not yet heard raised in
	debates about the targeting of Sure Start services. Surely, on a day when we are considering how to increase the social mobility of some of the most disadvantaged in society, it is important that we recognise the importance of enabling the most disadvantaged children to mix with children of other backgrounds. That helps to raise aspirations and keep quality and standards up, and I am concerned that a residualised approach to Sure Start, such as we are beginning to see in Trafford, may remove that aspirational gain. That point was raised in his excellent report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)—I am sorry to see that he has just left the Chamber. He strongly advocated a universal Sure Start service because of the role that it could fulfil in helping to strengthen communities and the support that it could give families.
	I am concerned that Trafford council’s decision ignores the legitimate and important concerns that I have mentioned. I understand that Ministers do not want to interfere in local decisions about priorities, but I hope that as they publish their important document on child poverty and social mobility strategy today, they will want to track the indicators of social mobility not just at national but at local level. If that is not done, it is difficult for me to see how, in the current circumstances, children in Trafford can be properly protected and our council held to account.

Mark Pawsey: I have the honour of representing the only place that has given its name to an international game. Rugby is known as both a midlands market town and a fast-growing game, played in two codes by men and women. Indeed, the use of the same word for town and game occasionally leads to confusion. If one googles any organisation in my constituency with the town in the title, one gets links to a variety of rugby clubs around the world.
	It all started in 1823 at Rugby school, which was originally established by Lawrence Sheriff for the boys of the town. In a game that largely did not have any rules, but involved hacking about an inflated pig’s bladder, a pupil called William Webb Ellis picked up the ball and, importantly, ran with it, creating the characteristic feature of the Rugby game.
	Other schools had their own rules for football, but they adopted Rugby’s rules over time and the growth in the game led in 1851 to a ball of the characteristic oval shape, which was made by William Gilbert in Rugby, being exhibited at the great exhibition in Crystal Palace.
	In 1871, at a meeting of 21 clubs in the Pall Mall restaurant in Regent street, the Rugby Football Union, the governing body for the sport in England, was founded, with its headquarters at Twickenham, which I describe as the second most well known place associated with the game of rugby.
	In the 1860s and ’70s, the game started to be played around the world, often taken to places by former pupils of the school. That led to the formation in 1886 of the International Rugby Board. One of the most significant developments in the game took place in 1895,
	when the 12 northern clubs broke away to form the Northern Rugby Union, later called the Rugby League. Since rugby league has remained mostly in the north of England, the connections between the town of Rugby and the game have been mostly in respect of rugby union.
	In the same year as the split, a plaque was unveiled at Rugby school, commemorating Webb Ellis’s invention of the game. It is known locally as the tablet. Along with the field, which is known locally as the close, it serves as the main draw to the town for enthusiasts of the game.
	The most significant recent development has been the introduction of the world cup tournament every four years. In 1987 it was first held, in Australia and New Zealand, when a trophy named after the game’s founder, Webb Ellis, was won, of course, by New Zealand.
	The next tournament took place in England four years later, in 1991, when Australia won and the town of Rugby experienced a large increase in visitor numbers as enthusiasts of the game, supporting their team, also looked in on the game’s home. The 1991 world cup served as a catalyst for the town’s increasing involvement with the game. In that year, Rugby’s pathway of fame, a series of plaques embedded in footpaths around the town, was opened.
	Also in 1991, the parliamentary world cup was played on the close at Rugby school. That enabled several Members of this place to put on their boots and play on the turf where William Webb Ellis started it all. I hope that that event will be repeated in the near future.
	After England’s victory in the 2003 tournament, the Sweet Chariot tour brought the trophy to the town, which honoured the winning team by granting them the freedom of the borough. The borough council has worked closely with the Rugby Football Union and the International Rugby Board in managing the collection of items that relates to the heritage of the game. Plans are in hand for a more extensive display in the town.
	The game that started modestly in my constituency has grown in the UK to 200 clubs nationwide embedded in local communities, with the unique feature that there is a position for everyone, regardless of shape or size. Two and a half million people are engaged in rugby activity throughout England, with 60,000 volunteers and 35,000 coaches.
	Rugby union is played in more than 100 countries spanning six continents. Later this year, the game’s profile will be raised internationally with this year’s world cup in New Zealand, which will provide a further focus on the town. However, the biggest opportunity will come in four years, when the tournament is based in England, with some games taking place at the nearby Ricoh stadium in Coventry.
	At that time, the town of Rugby will prepare itself for its biggest ever influx of visitors as people seek out the place where William Webb Ellis did the deed that led to the formation of the massive international game that we all know today.
	Rugby looks forward to that opportunity and to support from the Deputy Leader of the House and his Department in promoting the town as the home of the game.

Julian Huppert: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). I should point out to him that the original rules for association football were drawn up in Cambridge, so we have a shared interest, although that is not the subject that I wish to talk about today. I am sure we can discuss which game is better later.
	I want to talk about a Cambridge transport matter. It is important that the difficult decisions we must make to tackle the structural deficit do not make us give up hope for what we can do in future. Perhaps we should see the recent economic crisis as an opportunity to remodel our economy, to make it more sustainable, diverse and innovative. We talk a lot about the need to encourage innovation, research and development in manufacturing, and my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have both played important roles in encouraging scientific research in providing funding, for which I thank them. However, to build such a stable economy, we need a transport system to match. We need to get away from our overreliance on roads and cars, and move towards public transport, walking and cycling, and indeed towards travelling less altogether, with video-conferencing and working from home becoming increasingly viable alternatives.
	I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to talk about a plan that meets all those policy objectives: Chesterton station in north-east Cambridge. The proposal that I am supporting today would cost a little over £20 million. A bid has been made for £10 million of regional growth fund support, which I hope the Government will support. It is a well-thought-through, carefully planned scheme that would mean, right from the start, 12 trains an hour running through the new station during the peak times. The station would be an important strategic interchange that would cut journey times for the vast majority who work in the north of the city, whether they travel from other parts of Cambridge or from further afield. The station would also provide a direct link between the high-tech businesses in the north of Cambridge and London, which is critical to their growth, and it would link up with the rather flawed guided bus scheme, if that £180 million project, which was due for completion two years ago, is ever actually finished.
	Cambridge is a very special constituency for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that it is a new business model for the rest of the country. It has a robust economy driven by innovation, research and development. I have explored those issues more extensively elsewhere in a charter for entrepreneurs, drawing on the successful experience of Cambridge’s brightest and best investors and innovators.
	There are some very successful areas. Cambridge science park has more than 100 global companies, 145 square metres of R and D floor space, and more than 5,000 jobs on site in important high-tech companies such as CSR and Cambridge Consultants. Nearby, Cambridge business park has another 1,200 jobs in companies such as Autonomy and Cambridge Broadband Networks and so on. St John’s Innovation Centre is also in Cambridge. As well as the large global companies, we have the small start-ups—the globals of tomorrow—such as Taptu, Light Blue Optics and many others. Their
	presence means that Cambridge has been insulated from many of the problems that have affected other parts of the country, such as unemployment.
	There are risks—Cambridge is in danger of losing its comparative advantage as a business destination of choice. When I talk to entrepreneurs and those companies, they express concerns about overheating and the lack of infrastructure investment, and talk of housing shortages forcing people to live further away and of traffic congestion in the city. Despite the impressive environmental credentials of many of my constituents, more than a quarter of whom cycle to work or education, the ability of companies and businesses to grow is hampered by the lack of public transport access, particularly in the northern part of the city.
	That is a key issue, and why it is so important that the Government accept the compelling case for a new station in Chesterton. Financially, the £10 million from regional growth funds, with £10 million that we can raise locally, will in only a few years give a £5 million a year cash surplus to the railway through fares and parking. It is a very profitable proposal. It has been calculated that the proposal will lead to around 1,000 jobs, making it a good investment.
	The case is clear not only in Cambridge, but more widely. For example, somebody who works at the science park but commutes in from Brandon in Suffolk currently has roughly a 40-minute drive—or twice that if the traffic is bad. The rail journey would cut that down to 28 minutes. That is true for a huge range of other rail journeys into the science park area, because the new station would be just a short walk from all those companies. It has been suggested that it would attract about 2,600 users a day, about 1,500 of whom would be new users. Furthermore, the 1,100 who are not new to rail would not be travelling across the congested centre of Cambridge.
	The scheme has been worked up and in the pipeline for a long time, and is supported by Cambridge city council, Cambridgeshire county council, Suffolk county council and many others. When I served on the regional assembly, it was the No. 1 regional priority. It would remove unnecessary traffic from Cambridge city centre, improve air quality, reduce congestion and delay, enhance public transport access and relieve congested roads such as the A14, A10, A11, M11 and A1301. It would also open up public transport routes for those in cities to the north of Cambridge, such as March, King’s Lynn and Brandon, where there is less opportunity already.
	The station could open up these opportunities and bring economic benefits to those areas, as the spending power of employees who live in the towns and could now commute by train to Cambridge increases. That is why Suffolk county council supports the scheme. The scheme fits well with national and local transport objectives, and would also alleviate traffic on the A14, which is a national concern. I do not envy Ministers in the Department for Transport. They have to be skilled financial managers and strategic visionaries, planning transport schemes years or decades in advance. However, every once in a while something comes along that really is an easy win. I urge the Government to support the plans for a station at Chesterton. It makes sense for Cambridge, for the east of England and for the UK as a whole.

Mel Stride: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and to speak about the importance of supporting businesses in our rural communities. I represent a highly rural constituency. At 550 square miles, it is one of the largest in the country. It is also, I believe, the only constituency in the country with no conurbation with a population in excess of 10,000—my largest town has a population of about 6,000 or 7,000.
	Quite often in the House when we debate the economy and business, we implicitly make the assumption that city and city-centre economies, areas with high levels of public sector employment and perhaps our traditional industrial heartlands are particularly vulnerable to economic downturn. However, I am here to argue that rural communities are just as vulnerable, although in different but equally important ways. Much of the economic output in my constituency comes from farming and agriculture, which has its own unique challenges, including the power of supermarkets to control milk prices and the ongoing problems with bovine TB. I and many of my constituents felt that the previous Government did very little to tackle the latter problem, so I am pleased that this Government are taking a more positive approach.
	In my constituency, as in many rural constituencies, small and medium-sized enterprises are particularly important. Hon. Members might be aware of a town called Okehampton in my constituency, which, because three SMEs have recently closed their plants, has seen unemployment sky-rocket from about 2% to in excess of 10%. That town and its community are having a difficult time at the moment.
	In general, I welcome what the Government have done to support business. First, through the emergency Budget last year, they stabilised the economy, got to grips with the deficit to ensure that we did not lose our credit rating status, and ensured that interest rates did not spike and that we did not end up in the position that Greece is in today. Secondly, they are bearing down on the tax burden on business. In the previous Budget, they removed an extra 1% from corporation tax, so that it will be 23% by April 2014, which will give us the lowest level of corporation tax in the G7.
	I have serious concerns, however, about the level of national insurance taxation. I know that the Government headed off some of the more onerous elements that Labour had planned, but this is a tax on jobs, and it is very unwelcome. I ask Ministers to consider bringing it down as soon as possible. I received an e-mail just this afternoon from an important business in Bovey Tracey, the House of Marbles, pointing out just how onerous that tax will be on the future of the business.
	I welcome the fact that we are going to tackle regulation, that Lord Young’s proposals are to be implemented and that domestic regulation on businesses that employ fewer than 10 people and on genuine new start-ups will be removed or not applied for three years. Those are all positive steps forward.
	Specifically for rural communities, it is very important that the Government should keep a close eye on fuel costs. Very little happens in Central Devon in a business sense that is not affected by the price of fuel. Transporting a 25-tonne feed lorry from East Anglia to Devon costs some £400 in fuel alone. These are huge amounts, and
	they affect all businesses that use distribution. For example, Gregory's, a large haulage company in North Tawton in my constituency which transports milk in particular, operates right across the south-west and beyond. To the extent that fuel prices go up, the company’s prices go up too, and at the end of the day farmers’ margins are squeezed even harder.
	I want to raise one other important issue: the VAT rates applicable to tourist accommodation. We are unusual in the European Union, in that we are one of only five countries of the 27 member states to apply the same VAT rate to tourist accommodation as to other VAT-able items. That is a mistake. We should look seriously at lowering the rate. Germany has a VAT rate of 19%, but applies only a 9% rate to tourist accommodation. In Portugal, the figures are 20% for the general VAT rate, as here, but only 5% for tourist accommodation. Some 20% of our fellow countrymen and women take their holidays here in the United Kingdom, which is well below the 28% average across Europe, so we should really look at changing the rate.
	The final element that I would like to mention is the importance of getting broadband rolled out in our rural communities. Some 33% of households in Central Devon do not have access to broadband at 2 megabytes a second, which hampers business. The national figure is just 18.1%. I hope that Ministers will listen to the points that I have made and recognise that when it comes to business, rural communities are as important as those in our towns and cities.

Bob Blackman: It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) and, before him, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), as I live within walking distance of the proper home of football—Wembley stadium. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate, and I thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) raised the issue of Equitable Life policyholders. As co-chair of the all-party Equitable Life policyholders group, I trust that Members will attend our next meeting, on 17 May, when that subject will no doubt be raised.
	In the time available, I want to talk about the seven schools in my area that are considering moving to academy status, the consultation for which closed yesterday. Three of the schools, Park High, Canons High and Bentley Wood High, are in my constituency, and four of them, Hatch End, Nower Hill, Harrow High and Rooks Heath college, are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). We are talking about a potentially massive change to secondary schooling in Harrow and Brent: in the neighbouring borough, Claremont High school, which is just across the road from my constituency, is also considering becoming an academy.
	The background to the issue has to be understood. During the 1990s in Harrow, only two schools decided to go grant maintained, the rest remaining under local authority control. Therefore, some 74% of secondary places are now in schools that are under consideration to become academies. According to Ofsted, all the schools are classified as outstanding. However, we cannot
	be complacent, because that takes no account of academic capability or the results achieved in those schools. In fact, Ofsted reported that Park High school needed to
	“raise achievement by planning lessons to meet the varied needs of…students”
	and
	“Improve the consistency of the rigour with which curriculum leaders analyse the weaknesses in student achievement.”
	Canons High needed to
	“Raise attainment, especially in English and Maths, via inspirational teaching, sharper monitoring and curriculum development,”
	all of which I would strongly support.
	One of the myths that is spread about the London borough of Harrow is that it is a leafy suburb. The fact is that, in most of the schools there, between 30% and 60% of the children are eligible for free school meals. There is great deprivation in Harrow, and it needs extensive assistance. One problem is that the schools were so successful that the last Government put Harrow right at the back of the queue for Building Schools for the Future. There was therefore no prospect of the schools being rebuilt to provide better-quality facilities where young people could learn.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my colleague in Harrow, for giving way. I would just like to correct something, as he is perhaps not aware that the eighth school, which is not going for academy status, Whitmore high school, received considerable sums of money from the previous Government and was completely rebuilt. That process was facilitated by the local authority under the stewardship of his party and mine. Is that not a good example of a local authority working in partnership with schools? Does he agree that we want to see that continue, whether the schools become academies or not?

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. colleague for that intervention. The Whitmore high school, which has been rebuilt, suffered a fire and is now the subject of a scandal over the commitment of money and the overspending that has taken place on the rebuilding. The hon. Gentleman and I both care passionately about that subject, and we would not want to see that situation repeated. However, we want the co-operation to continue, whether the schools become academies or not, so that the community spirit can focus on the schools across the whole of Harrow.
	Money is a big issue, and the additional funding that the seven schools would gain would add up to just over £3 million every year, which they would then disburse. It is not surprising, therefore, that Harrow council is taking this matter very seriously and looking at the structure of education locally as a result. I have raised this matter in the House before. I am concerned about the misinformation that has been spread by the council in its answers to frequently asked questions. In answer to the question “What do academies teach?”, it suggests that each school is
	“free to teach whatever it decides and does not have to follow the National Curriculum.”
	It does not go on to say that the curriculum must be broad and balanced, and have a core of subjects including maths, English and science. That would of course be in the minds of many parents.
	The council also talks about admissions policies, but makes no mention of the fact that academies will be bound by the admissions code. Again, this is setting up problems for the future. In answer to the question about whether academies will raise standards, the council talks about the previous Government’s proposals to replace failing and low-performing schools with academies. This takes no account of the fact that these are high-performing schools that will achieve more when the new leaderships take over their duties.
	Questions are also asked about the effect on primary schools, and about whether the academies will have an impact on the ethos of education locally. It is clear that the schools in Harrow that are now consulting on becoming academies have said that they will retain the same admissions policies. They will also have a policy to work with the primary schools and other feeder schools, and in co-operation with all the other schools in the borough, whether they become academies or not.
	The trade unions have run a major campaign against the schools taking on academy status. They have taken a short-sighted, narrow view on what could happen to the schools if they became academies. In May, the governing bodies of all seven schools will make a decision. It will be a momentous decision for the future not only of the individual schools but of the education system in the borough. I hope that those governing bodies will make the right decision, set themselves free and improve education for all the people of Harrow.

Graham Evans: I am grateful for the chance to make a brief contribution. I want to talk about a recent announcement that has generated considerable concern in my constituency. After endless delays under Labour, this coalition Government have approved capital investment funding for the £431 million Mersey Gateway project in Runcorn. This plan is for a second crossing of the river Mersey; it is essential for tackling congestion across the region and will play a crucial part in the regeneration of Runcorn. It enjoys cross-party support and I have been pleased to work with Labour-controlled Halton borough council and the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who I know has worked tirelessly in support of the project.
	At the recent “march for the alternative”, however, when asked where Labour would make the £14 billion-worth of cuts they said they would make this year, the Labour deputy leader said that the Labour party would
	“hold back on capital investment”.
	Given that the total level of capital investment planned is far less than the amount Labour says it will cut, and given that it has failed to specify any other areas for cuts, one must assume that it is planning to cut all capital investment. We can only assume that that means that Labour would scrap the Mersey Gateway project. That would be a terrible and stupid mistake. One must also assume that Labour would also cut £100 million of science capital development, including the substantial share going to Daresbury science and innovation campus in my constituency.
	Presumably, high-speed rail is also for the chop under Labour’s plans. Indeed, it would appear that no capital projects are safe under Labour. I strongly encourage all Members to speak up and demonstrate why the
	infrastructure projects in their constituencies should go ahead, as it would be economic madness to hold back on genuine capital investment at this time. If we want to rebalance the economy, improve our international competitiveness and go back to sustainable growth, we need to go ahead with the sensible capital investment that was approved following the spending review. Let me put it this way: Labour’s plan to hold back on capital investment would be the wrong cut at the wrong time.
	I thus applaud the Government who have been able to put together a credible and comprehensive plan for eliminating the structural deficit over the course of this Parliament, while ensuring that key projects such as the Mersey Gateway scheme go ahead. I think it is essential for the Opposition urgently to clarify their position on this crucial subject.
	Finally, let me talk about another issue of serious concern in my area, on which it would be helpful to have some clarity from the Labour party. Having free parking in a town is one proven way of helping to keep a high street vibrant. In Northwich in my constituency, it remains free to park. Conservative councillors have made it crystal clear that it will remain free to park. The local Labour candidates for the election this May, however, have been going round running a misinformation campaign, trying to convince local businesses and residents that the only way to keep parking free is to vote Labour. Despite being criticised for shameless scaremongering and being asked to apologise and clarify the situation, Labour has carried on pursuing every dirty trick in the book in its attempt to get a footing back in the town after being wiped out at the local elections of 2008.
	Labour first took the people of Northwich for granted; now it is trying to take us for fools—and it is becoming more serious. Some businesses contacted me because they were worried after hearing Labour’s rumours. Some have talked even of leaving Northwich. Labour’s reckless scaremongering campaign is now at risk of hurting our high streets and putting jobs in danger. It is important for the Labour candidates involved in this campaign to come out and apologise immediately. The people of Northwich deserve better.

David Heath: What a wonderful occasion these pre-Adjournment debates always are. I congratulate, as have others, the Backbench Business Committee on maintaining the tradition, albeit as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said, under a modified Hollobone system, rather than the full Hollobone one that we had last time. That has enabled four Members to have their contributions answered by the relevant, and very much better informed, Minister—the Minister with responsibility for pensions in the Department for Work and Pensions. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough was kind enough to say in his earlier comments—it is mentioned in the rubric to the notice of the debate—it is anticipated that I will be unable to answer the debate satisfactorily and therefore to provide hon. Members with adequate responses. I share that pessimistic assessment. Notwithstanding any comments
	that I make this evening, I will ensure that every Member who has spoken receives a proper written response from the relevant Department.

Gareth Thomas: The Deputy Leader of the House is generous in allowing me to intervene, as indeed he should be on occasions such as this. Does he agree that local authorities should help to create a genuine and open debate about the merits or otherwise of academies, and that putting both sides of the argument on councils’ websites and encouraging youth parliaments in towns to debate the issue is a positive move? In that context, would he care to praise Harrow council—Labour-run—for facilitating such a debate?

David Heath: I have to say that I have no idea how Harrow council—Labour-run—has approached the issue of academies in the borough, although I have heard what has been said by both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who shares the borough with him. I think it important for communities—both the school community and the wider community—to discuss such matters properly and for a view to be reached that is then conveyed to Government, and to that extent I agree with him, but the way in which the arguments are couched is a very different matter.
	I was looking for some common themes in the debate, but reluctantly concluded that there were none. For that reason, rather than trying to weave Members’ contributions together in an elegant fashion, I shall deal with them one by one, commenting on them briefly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) spoke of problems of oil and gas production associated with his constituency. I do not know of anyone who is better attuned to the industry than my hon. Friend, who has made a point of talking to representatives of industry over the years and being alive to their concerns. I understand why he said what he said, but, as he knows, the Treasury believes that because the oil industry is making record profits which will probably remain high because of the oil price, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on production and investment as a result of the tax change in the Budget. However, he was right to pass on the concerns that had been expressed to him, and I will ensure that Ministers from the Treasury and, indeed, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are aware of them.
	The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) talked about buses. I was intrigued to hear about her big bus survey—a very snappy name for a survey—which, I gathered, was obtaining very useful results. I think that unless we recognise the value of public transport in this country we will be missing a trick, and will not achieve some of our objectives. I hope that she will maintain pressure on local authorities in her area to support bus services where that is appropriate. As she knows, a great many bus services receive no funds directly from councils, and are entirely commercially run. I am very impressed by what is being done by my colleagues in the Department for Transport in supporting community transport, and she may like to consider that in the context of her constituency.
	I disagreed with the hon. Lady on only one point. She said that the loss of education maintenance allowance meant that young people attending colleges would not
	be able to obtain transport, but that is precisely the issue that will be dealt with by the replacement for EMAs. An important part of the support for young people entering further and higher education is ensuring that they are equipped to do the job, as I hope she will recognise during the months and years to come.
	The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned his constituents George and Dot Kemp. I am sure that the whole House will want to offer its heartiest congratulations to George and Dot on the occasion of their 60th wedding anniversary, which is a remarkable achievement in anyone’s book. The hon. Gentleman stressed, as he often does, the importance of stable families and stable relationships to stable societies.
	I do not think anyone would disagree with the view that it is important to provide family stability for children. That can be achieved in a variety of contexts of course, but stability is crucial. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was heartened by the earlier response that he received to an intervention during my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks on social mobility. He knows that the Government are attuned to supporting stability in family relationships, so far as it is possible for the Government to achieve that objective.
	The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) talked about the very difficult situation that has arisen in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in respect of the competing commercial claims of companies working there. I perfectly well understand why he has reported that to the House, but he also knows that this is a legal dispute, and at the end of the day it will have to be resolved within the DRC legal systems. He made some wider points too, however. He stressed the need for—I hope I can say this while in no way patronising the DRC or any other developing country—a business environment that people can trust. That is crucial for the economic development of many such countries. I know Her Majesty’s ambassador to Kinshasa has already raised that with the DRC Government in the context of First Quantum Minerals. The hon. Gentleman also stressed the need for transparency in business arrangements, and the Government absolutely agree. I hope that we will make further progress on that, particularly in respect of British companies or those listed on British exchanges. He has therefore made a valuable point.
	No pre-recess Adjournment debate would be complete without the tour d’horizon of Southend that the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) generally provides. He said at one point that it is all happening in Southend. It seems that it is always all happening in Southend, which is why we love his contributions so much. I do not know how he manages to fit so many subjects into such a short period of time. He raised topics ranging from internet scams to Camp Ashraf, and I will, of course, make sure he receives responses on all of them. I wish to single out what he said about internet scams, however, as that is a growing problem. The Government take online fraud extremely seriously. What is illegal offline is illegal online, and it is a matter for the police and the relevant regulator.
	When we get these phishing e-mails or scams, most of us do nothing about them; we just delete them. Those of us who are—if I can use this word—sophisticated enough to recognise a scam when we see it should do more than just delete them, however. We should report them every single time, so that the authorities can pursue the people
	who prey on the vulnerable and those less able to recognise a scam. People are often defrauded of very large sums of money. I hope that we can make a start in pushing back against what is a very pernicious way of defrauding many people.

Robert Smith: It would be good if the companies whose logos are used as a front for phishing scams took an interest when a customer reports such incidents. The logo of the Royal Bank of Scotland has been used.

David Heath: I could not agree more. I have often received e-mails telling me about my Halifax account when I have never had a Halifax account in my life. I feel guilty that I have not contacted the Halifax and said, “Do you know somebody’s conducting a scam and pretending it’s from your site?”
	Sadly, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is not in his place at present. He talked about the swine flu pandemic. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I do not entirely agree with everything he said. It is easy to say that contingency expenditure was not necessary, but the authorities would rightly have been criticised if they had not taken appropriate measures in response to what the World Health Organisation said. As the House probably knows, an independent review, undertaken by Dame Deirdre Hine, of the UK response concluded that the preparations for the pandemic were soundly based in terms of value for money and that the response was proportionate and effective. I criticised the previous Government at one point for not being ready for a pandemic, but they took action and made sure that we were better prepared. Therefore, I am not going to criticise Labour Members now for having perhaps reacted excessively in this case, although without having any reason to realise that they were overreacting.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) raised the cases of three of his constituents, all of which ought to give us cause for concern. The wounded soldier’s case is the one that immediately comes to mind, because everyone in this House ought to appreciate the debt that we owe to the young men and women we send to places such as Afghanistan. They risk their lives and their futures in that country and similar conflict areas, and part of the covenant with our armed forces is that we will treat them properly when they return. I will make sure that the relevant Minister gets a clear message about that individual.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Ukraine and the case of Barry Pring, a constituent of his who is, sadly, deceased. This is a matter that I should bring to the attention of the Minister with responsibility for consular services in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am not sure whether the case of Mr Hart and the Axminster medical practice has gone beyond the point where it can be remedied, but I will still pass the details on to my colleagues in the Department of Health.
	The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) rightly raised the issue of Sri Lanka, as he has done on a number of occasions. He knows that the Government continue to have grave concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka, including in respect of disappearances, extra-judicial killings, arbitrary arrests and restrictions on free expression. These concerns are constantly raised with the Sri Lankan Government and we have also consistently stressed the need for Sri Lanka to have an
	independent and credible process to address allegations of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the conflict. I think we can only maintain that pressure. He is right to raise the issue on behalf of a substantial community in his constituency with an interest in Sri Lanka, and I hope that the House will continue to concentrate its mind on such matters.

Gareth Thomas: rose —

David Heath: I do not have an unlimited amount of time, but I will give way briefly.

Gareth Thomas: I recognise that, understandably, the Minister cannot give me a detailed answer to my various questions, but may I ask him to encourage the Foreign Office to examine the particular issue of the three-member panel and whether its report to the UN Secretary-General can be made public?

David Heath: I will indeed.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of polyclinics. He knows that the Government’s view is that local health facilities are best determined by people in localities and that the whole thrust of Government policy is to ensure that that happens. Therefore, if the polyclinics enjoy a high level of support in his area, I hope that that will be demonstrated in any future action in that area.
	The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) raised a fascinating issue. We sometimes forget about the value of 20th-century buildings that may not be immediately attractive. I am not saying that such buildings are not immediately attractive, because some listed buildings in my area, dating from the second world war, are sections of hangars. They were made into residential properties as a temporary measure during the war and are very near the air station at Yeovilton. They are now listed and they are fine examples of something that was done as an expediency but that has a continuing historical interest.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of nuclear facilities. As he says, this is not a question about the rights or wrongs of nuclear power; it is about the fact that they have clearly made a contribution to the technological advances, or otherwise, of the 20th century. He recognises the difficulties involved when a heritage site may indeed be dangerous because of radioactive contamination—we need to be careful—but he knows that the Government recognise the historical significance of Britain’s nuclear sites and that we are looking to see what can be done to ensure that that heritage is at least maintained in part. I must say that when I am in Bridgwater bay I prefer to look towards the Quantocks and Exmoor than towards Hinkley Point, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) talked about the Animal Procedures Committee. This is a very sensitive issue and he was absolutely right to raise it in the House. We have moved a long way over the years. When I was an undergraduate reading physiological sciences, I was automatically given a vivisection licence as a 19-year-old. That would not happen nowadays, but it was normal at the time. It was considered perfectly all right then, but it would not be now. The Government have made a clear commitment in the coalition agreement
	to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific procedures and we are working on plans that we will announce in due course, which I hope will trigger exactly the sort of debate that he asked for.
	The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) mentioned the Avon and Somerset helicopter, which is very dear to my heart because I was the chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority when it was bought. Until then we had had no air cover in Avon and Somerset. I persuaded Gloucestershire constabulary to share a third of the cost and between us we were able to afford a helicopter that was based at Filton, so I recognise the value of that facility to the force area.
	The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s comments was antisocial behaviour and the effect on his constituents. I am sure that he will have done this, but if he has not he ought to seek a meeting in the very near future with Chief Constable Colin Port of the Avon and Somerset police, who is very keen on community policing and policing at the local level. I am sure that he would be interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
	The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) raised the issue of Project Merlin. He is in the privileged position, as a member of the Treasury Committee, to be able to tease out these issues on a regular basis and I know he will continue to do so. I share his anticipation regarding the report of the Independent Commission on Banking. Like him, I hope it will be comprehensive and robust. The one point on which I would perhaps take issue with him is his comment that he would be reading the small print on Project Merlin. Under the previous Government’s arrangements with the banks, we could not read the small print because there was none—the pass was sold in a masterpiece of poor negotiation, but there we are.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) talked about the UK’s incineration policy. I think he will consider it good news when I tell him that the Government are reviewing all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England, including the recovery of energy from waste, with the principal aim of ensuring that we are taking the right steps towards a zero-waste economy. The findings of the review will be ready for publication in May 2011. In other words, it will not be very long now. I hope that he will find in that review something of value to his constituents, particularly those who live in St Dennis. I absolutely agree with him that the major objective must be an overall goal of waste reduction. The priority must be reducing it at source wherever possible rather than any form of waste disposal.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), to whom I listen with great care when she talks about child poverty and children’s care issues because I know she has a great deal of experience and expertise, talked about children’s centres and how they might be dealt with in Trafford. I apologise for sounding as though I invented everything, but I was involved in setting up one of the first children’s centres in Frome when I was the leader of the county council there. I think they are of enormous value, as do the Government. She raised a particular point about socialisation and the interplay between child poverty and providing opportunities for children to mix with others from different backgrounds, and she is absolutely right. We cannot have a system
	that is based on ghettoising people of modest means in any way, as that will not achieve the objectives of social mobility that were the entire thrust of what the Government said today.
	The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) started his speech very boldly by claiming that his was the only town to have given its name to a game. I say to him: Badminton. Obviously, rugby is the most important sport. Actually, there are three sports in my book: rugby, cricket and horse racing. The rest are games. He ought to know that he is talking to the right person about rugby, as I used to try to participate, and I would have worn my Saracens tie had I known that that was what he would raise. We are all looking forward to hosting the rugby league world cup in 2013 and the rugby union world cup in 2015, the latter of which is expected to contribute £1.1 billion to the economy. It is not just sport; it is big business as well, and all the better for it. I hope that the town of Rugby can contribute to and be recognised as part of that process.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made an extremely strong case for establishing a new railway station at Chesterton in his constituency, but obviously he needs to garner all the local support that is necessary to push for the project with the Department for Transport. I know that the Department is aware of the local interest. If I am in his constituency over the next few weeks, as I suspect I will be, I would be delighted to see the site for myself and report back to colleagues in the Department if that would be helpful. However, I cannot promise all hon. Members who have spoken that I will be able to visit their constituencies over the next few days.
	The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) raised a number of issues that are common to both our constituencies. I have one town—Frome—that is bigger than his biggest town, but nowhere else in the constituency has more than 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants, so we have similar demographics. We in rural areas often feel that we have been forgotten over the years. It is very important that we recognise the economic needs and potential of areas such as Somerset and Devon—but principally Somerset, of course.

Daniel Kawczynski: And Shropshire.

David Heath: Yes, although Shropshire is not in the same local enterprise partnership as Somerset and Devon, which were a little slow off the mark but now have their LEP. I am looking forward to seeing it work carefully to encourage business growth in our area and, in particular, stimulate the need for investment in broadband, which is essential to the economic future of areas such as ours. I know that the Government recognise that fact.
	The hon. Member for Harrow East referred to the seven schools in Harrow that are applying to become academies, and we heard a preview of that discussion from the hon. Member for Harrow West. I repeat that it is a matter for the governing bodies, but it is also a matter for others in the community to discuss with those bodies. We would expect local authorities to respect schools’ wishes and support them, but to do so in an informed way. I know that the Department for Education is keen to hear from the local schools and discuss their future needs with them.
	Finally, but not least among the 20 colleagues to whom I am responding in this brief debate, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) talked about the Mersey gateway project in Runcorn. He could not be more right. At a time when revenue budgets are necessarily constrained because we are dealing with the biggest deficit that any Government have ever faced, capital investment is nevertheless absolutely crucial. This Government have demonstrated that they are committed to introducing and maintaining capital investment to improve infrastructure and to create jobs, and that must be the right way to proceed. I hope that there will be no question whatever of what has been promised being cancelled at any future stage.
	In closing, I thank again the Backbench Business Committee, but I would like to wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the staff and Officers of the House and, indeed, all Members not a happy holiday, because I suspect that, certainly for most Members, it will be a very busy period indeed in their constituencies, but a peaceful Easter, and at least a brief respite from their duties in the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

PETITIONS

Bus Service (Croyland, Wellingborough)

Peter Bone: With the leave of the House, I will present two petitions.
	Last Friday I went to a packed protest meeting in the Croyland ward, which had been organised by the excellent Councillor Thomas Pursglove and Councillor Martin Griffiths, and it concerned the loss of a bus service.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of residents of the Croyland area of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, and the surrounding areas,
	Sheweth,
	That the proposed loss or reduction of public transport routes within the Croyland Ward of Wellingborough will significantly disadvantage local residents, in particular the elderly, disabled and young; and that the potential loss of the W3 bus service will leave many residents with no way of getting to the town centre.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport to liaise with Northamptonshire County Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to find a resolution that will lead to the maintenance of an acceptable level of public transport in Croyland.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000915]

Isham Bypass (Wellingborough)

Peter Bone: The second petition is on the disappointing news that the Isham bypass will not be built at the moment.
	The petition states:
	To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled,
	The Humble Petition of residents of the Isham area of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, and the surrounding areas,
	Sheweth,
	That for forty years there has been a need for a by-pass of the village of Isham; that the recent increase in housing and traffic has led to the environmental conditions for the residents of the main road in Isham being intolerable; and that the lack of a by-pass has caused unacceptable levels of noise and air pollution, safety issues for pedestrians and motorists and structural damage to properties.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport to liaise with Northamptonshire County Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to find a resolution that will lead to the reconsideration of the cancellation of the Isham By-Pass and a high priority given to its construction.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000914]

FORESTRY COMMISSION (NORTHUMBERLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Stephen Crabb.)

Alan Beith: And finally, to forestry. I am very glad of the opportunity to raise the issue of employment in forestry, and particularly employment by the Forestry Commission in Northumberland.
	There is more forestry production in Northumberland than in any other English county, and part of it takes place in my constituency, where the Forestry Commission has Harwood, Rothbury, Kidland and other forest areas. The greater part of the production takes place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), which has Kielder, Wark and Redesdale forests.
	Forestry jobs in my constituency are centred on the commission’s Rothbury office, but all 12 full-time equivalent jobs are planned to go with its closure. That is out of a total of just under 90 full-time equivalent jobs in the county, and they are to be reduced to 65. Most are based at Bellingham and Kielder in the Hexham constituency. Those numbers might not seem large to Members from urban areas, but they are very important to small rural communities such as Rothbury and Bellingham.
	Forestry staff are key holders of expertise on woodland issues. The forest ranger—we will have only one at the end of this process—used to educate schoolchildren about the forests and their wildlife, as well as helping to secure income from deerstalking. Forestry employees are key members of their local communities, often serving as first responders and trained firefighters. There are jobs in the wider community dependent on forestry, and the Rothbury office puts £200,000 a year into the local economy in salaries alone.
	Looking at the post-war history, it is interesting to note that the few remaining jobs in the direct employment of the Forestry Commission contrast with the original plans to provide a major source of employment in the countryside. Whole new villages such as Harwood in my constituency, and Kielder, were built between the 1940s and the 1960s for the workers who were expected to be employed in the expanding state forests. Now almost no forestry workers live in these houses. There were many critics of the policy that replaced hill shepherding with massive, regimented plantings of Norway and Sitka spruce, but the critics were told that trees meant jobs. Kielder village alone was projected to have a population of 800, but it never happened. The more accessible but still remote village of Harwood has become home to people who travel to a variety of jobs elsewhere. Even the house that has been built during my time as an MP, for the forest manager at Harwood, is no longer in forestry use.
	To get a reminder of the almost ideological commitment that brought large-scale forestry to our hills, I looked at the 1950s edition of the Shell guide to Northumberland written by the legendary town planner, Thomas Sharp, who said:
	“there is now taking place…an agronomic and scenic revolution of a kind that has happened only once before in the recorded history of England…The present revolution is in the development of the great new FORESTS that are being planted by the Forestry
	Commission, acting as the agent of Government…two or three hundred square miles of Cheviot country is being… transformed…beyond all recognition from grassy sheep walk into vast forest of…Sitka and Norway spruce.”
	He goes on:
	“You may not like what you see. Most of us who have loved these grassy hills with their soft, many-tinted, cloud-shadowed outlines, their sense of wide, unrestricted freedom, their clean free air, cannot but regret the beauty that has gone. But when these forests have matured they too will have some beauty of their own. And in any event, the case for change is incontestable. In the planting that is now going forward much hardly-used land is being brought into enormously increased productivity for human benefit. Where before, as sheep walk, it employed one man to approximately every 500 acres, as maturing forest it will employ twenty times as many”.
	He says that the new villages were to be
	“large enough to afford opportunities for a reasonably full social life even in these remote hills: and all so designed that they will not be suburban-looking intrusions but closely-knit places”
	with
	“something of the character of the true English village…in this great Government undertaking you will see in progress a rural revolution”.
	Well, we should beware of planners and their forecasts. Even in those days, many country people and many who loved the hills as walking country did not subscribe to this vision. Indeed, the Forestry Commission was often criticised for covering the hills with regimented blocks of non-native trees and for the failure of so many of these jobs ever to materialise. The majority of the jobs that were created in the local communities disappeared as a result of mechanisation, the use of highly mobile contractors, and the sale of standing timber to be harvested by the purchaser.
	We all experienced the recent campaign against the forest sales. The enthusiasm of that campaign, which has led to a rethink of the policies of the present Government, and indeed the previous one, is something of a tribute to the Forestry Commission and its staff. It was not that they campaigned, but that their work had changed the way that the Forestry Commission is perceived. From a position that was controversial to many, it has over the years won a lot of friends. How? It has significantly increased its commitment to landscaping and the use of native species, and adjusted its planting policy to avoid the alien squares and rectangles that wrecked the hill landscape in earlier forestry plantations. It has developed access and leisure opportunities that are much appreciated by the public. At Kielder, this is in co-operation with Northumbrian Water. Through the forest service, which is the main activity at the Rothbury office, it has provided valuable advice and administered grant and approval schemes for the large number of private forest owners and farmers in Northumberland. It has educated children and young people about forests and wildlife. Forest Enterprise, its commercial arm, is regarded by the timber-using industries, which are well-represented in Northumberland, as a guarantor of supply and relative stability in the market.
	It is obvious from all the e-mails we receive that people have learned to love the Forestry Commission, and that is down to the work of its staff. Clearly, a massive sale of forests would reduce the small staff even further and bring to an end much of the activity I have described. Smaller forest sales to rationalise the estate and some purchases can make sense, and I would not
	want the prospect of charitable trusts choosing to run some ancient woodlands, as the Woodland Trust already does, to be thrown out with the bathwater of the large-scale sales idea.
	The threat to jobs does not come from the halted programme of large-scale sales; it was planned to meet the financial pressures on the commission under the spending review. The redundancies were to be paid for out of the proceeds of the more limited programme of sales that the Government had announced earlier, based on the system for forest sales operated by the Labour Government, which has also been halted while the Government’s new independent advisory panel, chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool, considers the future of state forestry.
	If the panel recommends that there should be very few further sales, how are the redundancies to be financed? How are the losses, funded by the previous Government partly from sales, to be funded? If the panel recommends that more work should be done in access and leisure, in biodiversity or in education, how can it be done without the expertise of the staff who are being made redundant? How will the advisory work of the forest service in Northumberland’s private forestry be maintained? Its role is crucial, in, for example, combating disease when the threat arises. How will the panel consult not just the Institute of Chartered Foresters, which is represented on the panel, but forestry workers in general?
	There is a further crucial point that I want Ministers to consider. The Northumberland forests are unlike the forests of southern England—they are predominantly commercial, high-yielding forests. There is also extensive private commercial forestry to regulate. If all the forest service offices in the northernmost counties close—Rothbury, Hamsterley and Penrith—that work will not be easily or well managed from York or Delamere.
	Forestry in Northumberland is much more akin to forestry in Scotland. Indeed, the border forests used to be seen as a single group—I have with me tonight a guide book to the border forests—and they meet at the border in some places. Northumberland’s forests are commercial producers on a very large scale and they need to be understood differently from some of the forests in southern England.
	I have a specific proposal for the Government about the Rothbury office. The national park is considering closing its information centre in Rothbury and both Natural England and the Environment Agency work closely with the Forestry Commission and the national park, as does Northumberland county council. Why cannot those agencies pool a small amount of resources and maintain a presence in shared offices in Rothbury? In that way, they can retain an effective local service and improve joined-up working, which proved itself to be essential in handling the recent floods. It is time to think more radically about how services vital to the countryside and the rural community can be maintained. Here is an opportunity to set an example.
	Nationally, under the spending review, the Forestry Commission is likely to lose 29% of the staff of Forest Enterprise and 19% of the staff of forest services. Nowhere is that more keenly felt than in Northumberland. Now that the forest sales that were to fund that redundancy programme are being reconsidered, surely the office closure and the redundancies must be reconsidered, too. Apparently, half a million people signed—or perhaps
	clicked on—the petition opposing forestry sales. They were not convinced by the argument that large-scale commercial forestry does not need to be state run, at least in part. They were particularly concerned to maintain the access and biodiversity work, which needs experienced and qualified commission staff. This is not an easy circle for the Government to square, but they must listen and they must respond.

James Paice: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) on securing the last Adjournment debate of this part of the parliamentary Session. This matter is close to his heart and important to his constituency, but, as he rightly said, it is of much greater significance, as we have witnessed over the past few weeks.
	As my right hon. Friend rightly reminded us, his constituency, and the county of Northumberland even more so, are hugely important to the public forestry estate. His constituency, despite not containing Kielder, is within the top 10 by public forest estate land area, which makes it very important. He rightly referred to many issues beyond pure forestry, such as forestry employment and jobs, and rural housing. He knows as well as I do that the world has moved on and that the idea of big estates, whether private or public, for workers in any industry has long since disappeared. Nevertheless, forestry workers and the forestry industry are important in rural areas. I have always understood the statistics, which he gave, that compare forestry with hill farming, which preceded the planting of many forests.
	I and the Department recognise that Kielder and most forests in northern England are primarily commercial. As my right hon. Friend said, they are more akin to some Scottish forests. Nevertheless, as we have witnessed over the past few weeks, there is significant public concern about their future. However, I do not wish to repeat all the issues that were raised in the initial consultation and before it.
	We have taken a step back and have appointed the independent panel, to which my right hon. Friend referred. The panel will advise us on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England. It has already had its first meeting. To partly answer his question about forestry workers, the chairman of the panel said yesterday in a brief statement after its first meeting that it is determined to get around the country and to meet everybody who has an interest in these matters, including forestry employees and those who campaigned in various ways in the run-up to the formation of the panel.
	As my right hon. Friend said, there is the separate issue of the planned disposal of 15% of the public forest estate, which we had planned to do during the spending period from this financial year to 2014-15. I stress that that has been suspended, not cancelled. As he rightly said, those figures were part of the overall DEFRA budget, although most of the money was not allocated because we did not have it. Nevertheless, some of it was to be used by the Forestry Commission. I will come back to that point.
	My right hon. Friend asked how the redundancies will be funded. I will come back to this in more detail, but it is relevant at this point. They will be funded by DEFRA’s modernisation fund, and were not planned to be funded from the forest sales. Obviously, there will be an effect on cash flow, because we intend to resume the sales after the panel has reported on how we can protect public interests. That is a cash-flow issue for the Forestry Commission, which we are working closely with it to minimise.
	Obviously, the panel will have to recognise the constraints and competing demands on public expenditure in this spending review period and beyond. That brings us to the current situation, which my right hon. Friend rightly distinguished from the future of the public forestry estate. Clearly, we have to reduce the structural deficit. We have said that that is the No. 1 Government priority, and with the two notable exceptions of the national health service and the Department for International Development, everybody is having to take their fair share. The Forestry Commission, along with DEFRA and all our other arm’s length bodies, has to work in that tough fiscal environment, which means unprecedented savings.
	The Forestry Commission’s budget in England will reduce by 25% over the next four years, and I stress that in addition, we expect Forest Enterprise to reduce to zero the current reliance on the sale of assets for some £8 million a year of income. My right hon. Friend referred to the sales carried out by previous Governments, and in the past several years capital has been sold to fund revenue. That practice is completely wrong. It has been the selling off of forests simply to fill a gap in Forestry Commission finances, and it has to stop by the end of this spending review period.
	To achieve those changes, the Forestry Commission in England will need to undertake significant restructuring and the downsizing of its programmes, at the same time as taking on a number of new challenges. The commission’s focus will be much more on protecting and improving the woodland resource and encouraging woodland expansion. That will be delivered through promoting a competitive, thriving and resilient forestry sector, and through the empowerment, engagement and involvement of many local communities in the big society.
	May I pick up my right hon. Friend’s point about disease? Ever since I took responsibility for the matter, I have been extremely concerned by the march of a number of diseases, particularly Phytophthora ramorum, which fortunately I do not think has reached Northumberland, but which has devastated forests in the south-west. I do not want to say too much, because the commission has not yet consulted on the matter, but I can assure him that we are doing our very best to maintain research into such diseases. Although I cannot say that there will be no reduction in spending on forestry research, the key tree health and disease programmes will be protected. That is very important if we are to get on top of diseases that could have a devastating effect, and not just on non-native species—we know that some of them are in oaks, as well.

Alan Beith: I know that the Minister takes a close interest in that matter. The disease threat requires the commission to be able to respond quickly if a farmer or landowner discovers what appears to be evidence of
	disease on his land. It will not be satisfactory if somebody has to come up from the opposite end of the country to do that.

James Paice: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am just coming on to the specific proposals. I do not think there is any real suggestion that somebody would have to come up from the other end of the country.
	Only last Friday, the commission closed its consultation with its staff on proposals for restructuring and reducing the size of the organisation in such a way that it can manage the public estate and deliver the wider forestry service. One proposal in the consultation document was to reduce the number of forest districts that manage the public forest estate from 12 to six, and the units that manage grants and regulations from nine to five. An inevitable consequence of that proposal would be a reduction in the number of offices needed, and as my right hon. Friend said, regrettably, one of the offices that has been identified as potentially surplus to future requirements is Rothbury. However, the nearby office at Bellingham would remain, and high priority is being given to retaining front-line staff. The Forestry Commission will aim to minimise the negative impact on its staff and will use compulsory redundancies only as a last resort.
	My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the options for sharing offices, and I can assure him that the potential for office sharing with other delivery bodies is being considered. That is not unique to the Forestry Commission, because DEFRA is pressurising all its arm’s length bodies to work much more closely together. That applies to Natural England and the Environment Agency, and, as he rightly said, to the national park authorities where relevant. We are encouraging much closer working, not just the sharing of office space, in the interests of efficiency as well as of resource saving.
	As my right hon. Friend knows, I cannot speculate on the outcome of the consultation to which I referred and the decisions that the Forestry Commission needs to make, but I can outline the next steps that it has planned.
	By the end of April, the responses to the consultation will be shared with staff and by the end of May, the proposals for structures and staffing will be presented
	to the Forestry Commission’s staff council and to wider staff. That will be followed by an implementation plan, which is expected to be delivered progressively to 2014-15.
	Unfortunately, as we all know, the financial position in which we find ourselves means that forestry commissioners cannot delay starting the changes until after the panel advising on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England has reported.
	The way in which the Forestry Commission moves forward to 2014-15 is also likely to be influenced by the outcome of the panel’s report, and any decisions we make in response to its advice. My right hon. Friend rightly said that perhaps the outcome will be more work for the Forestry Commission. All I can say is that we will have to cross that bridge if and when we come to it. We cannot afford to wait, because the savings have to be made.
	However, the overall aim is to ensure that we have an organisation that is fit for purpose and can deliver our key objectives for forestry in England.
	None of us willingly enters into action that will cause other people to lose their jobs. As somebody born and bred in the countryside, I feel passionately about it and fully understand that, as my right hon. Friend said, very small numbers can be significant in our more rural areas. None of us entertains such action lightly. However, getting the country’s structural deficit back under control should not be taken lightly, either. That is why we have to make tough decisions, although the detail is clearly a matter for the Forestry Commission.
	The Department and the Government feel strongly that forestry is a vital part of our rural communities. It is now in the hands of the panel to advise us on the form that it takes—the ownership, management and so on—but we are convinced that it has a long-term future as part of the rural economy and of providing biodiversity, energy, a carbon sink and the multiple benefits that we all, as a community, get from our forests.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the subject and I hope that I have been able to answer at least some of his concerns.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.